Posted on 01/27/2013 7:25:19 AM PST by Seizethecarp
Sheriff Joe Arpaio's lead Obama investigator Mike Zullo appeared on Carl Gallups' radio show Freedom Friday. Zullo repeated that the Obama investigation never stopped and that the only thing that stopped is the media coverage around the investigation....
Zullo says; "We are so convinced... let me go out on limb... I am going to put my reputation out there that we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt--the higher standard--beyond a reasonable doubt that this document is an utter forgery."
Zullo also says; "the evidence we have acquired, new found evidence that we have never made public at any point in time, and we are not going to make public until we have the right opportunity, will convince even the greatest skeptic that this document is 100% a forgery."
The evidence is there to establish a challenge to the Full, Faith And Credit Clause.
What evidence effectively refutes the prima facie evidence of a state certified birth certificate? That is one large hurdle! And, like a said, allegations and speculation don’t count. You need credible records and witnesses.
Think of it like this: You put a candy bar in your bedroom at 1:00. When you got back at 1:30, you discover the candy bar is gone. You go to your mother and tell her than your brother Timmy ate your candy bar. Your mother says, Nonsense, your father tells me that Timmy has been with him from 11:00 until now. He couldn’t have eaten your candy bar. Well, the state record is like your father’s word. It is authoritative and credible. Your mother WILL believe your father. One state, as mandated by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, WILL believe another state. Think about what you would have to do to get your mother to believe something other than what your father says. High hurdle, right? Pointing out that your brother is a known liar and thief isn’t credible proof. You need to prove that the information your father has is incorrect. The same applies when challenging state records. State records are presumed correct. That’s part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
so what do you need to challenge a computerized copy of a document, does it have full faith and credit? When has the supposed actual document been presented in court?
Where is this "prima facie evidence" - a paper document with requisite seals?
NOWHERE
There are only websites with JPEGs, PDF files, and print copies of JPEGs from websites.
We want to see the "prima facie evidence" IN COURT.
You are a lousy skeptic. Illogical and nonsensical.
And as Butterdezillion has shown, Onaka's verification letters are anything BUT verifications. They are completely the opposite. Like double negatives.
Lets be sure to cite this fact.
The state of Hawaii has never, repeat never, directly released any record in this matter. Never.
The 2008 COLB magically appeared as a key feature in the ‘Fight The Smears’ blog in June 2008. It was also release simultaneously by multiple politically operative blogs.
Even a representative from Hawaii said of the image and physical paper presented by Fact Check in August of 2008 that ‘we may never know what this an image of.’
So Hawaii has never made a claim of authenticity of that document. Ironically, when the WH released the LFBC image in April of 2011 they also posted a black and white image of the infamous COLB. That image was apparently a browser print of the document from the SNOPES website. The footer information at the bottom of the document shows that. If the 2008 COLB was authentic and in safe keeping why was in not re-presented in some manner? Does that specific ‘state-issued’ document still exist? It seems it would have been kept in safe keeping. So for that document it is simple - just present the ORIGINAL ACTUAL document and have officials from Hawaii authenticate it as authentic along with any type of backup that it was actually issued in 2007. A very simple task. Yet never done.
Fast forward to April 2011. The LFBC posted on the WH website is an Adobe pdf electronic file. It was not released by the state of Hawaii. The director of the Health Department did apparently create a cover letter indicating that something was provided - to attorneys from the White House. Assuming the letter is authentic and factually correct what was given to the WH attorneys has not been confirmed. In fact, Hawaii officials have gone out their way in responses to states in 2012 to avoid confirming the Adobe electronic file is a replication of an actual, authentic state-issued document.
So the first fact is - nothing has ever, ever been released with the unqualified and full support of the state of Hawaii.
No actual state-issued document has ever been presented to a court. Never.
Confirming a document as authentic from a digital image is, as properly noted, imppossible. YOU MUST HAVE THE PHYSICAL ACTUAL DOCUMENT TO VALIDATE IS AUTHENTICITY. But is possible to show that a digital image is not a reproduction of any authentic document. This is not difficult. And it has been done for both the COLB and LFBC. Both are clearly not images of official Hawaii documents.
The anti-fraud mechanisms in most state-issue documents are made to hinder the easy reproduction of copy of ACTUAL DOCUMENT. Features that good state document should have include: a) ‘secure-void’ that show the word ‘void’ when a document is photocopied in a standard copier (btw, no present on Hawaii documents apparently), b) micro lettering to include words in what appears as lines (also not used by Hawaii), c) Detailed borders with very intricate designs that do not reproduce well (used by Hawaii at one time as evidenced by the PeterBoy COLB, but not used now), d) watermarks that do not show via photocopying or scanning (also not used by Hawaii now) and e) embossed seals that - by design - do NOT show up or barely show up when photocopied or scanned (the ‘raised seal’ on Hawaii document is an easy to copy de-embossed pin die.), and f)security paper that has a multi-color, unique background (Hawaii uses cheap, easily available paper with a common background.). For an example of a document that does include some of the features simply see Bobby Jindals BC document. The differences are very apparent.
The Hawaii documents are almost designed for enabling fraud. They simple in their construct and simple to manipulate after they are digitized.
But without the actual document one can not say anything presented is authentic. One MUST have the document. And an actual physical document is never come forward.
Not if it’s a non-valid BC. A non-valid BC means that the legal presumption is that it is NOT true, and it is up to Obama to prove that it is. What Onaka has disclosed is that Obama’s Hawaii BC is NON-VALID.
Anything you believe to the contrary is at this point a matter of blind faith, ConstantSkeptic.
For a ConstantSkeptic you use the words I BELIEVE a lot. Where’s your proof of a real, certified, paper document?
And your analogy is stupid.
You and Mom have never seen the candy bar. You’ve been told there is/was a candy bar. ONLY Dad has said he’s seen the candy bar. The candy bar is supposed to still be someplace WITH Dad. Are you sayin that Obama’s birth certificate was stolen or eaten?
Where is this “prima facie evidence” - a paper document with requisite seals?
NOWHERE
You’re absolutely right that Obama has not been required to present his Certificate of Live Birth in any court. As I said before, it is MY belief that Hawaii would provide him with one stating that he was born in Hawaii. You may believe otherwise. That’s your privilege.
Do you understand how courts work? You can’t just go in and say “I don’t believe you were born in the U.S. Prove it!” If anyone could possibly challenge Obama’s place of birth in court, all Obama would have to do is produce a Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii with the signature and seal, and then the burden of proving that false would be on the accuser. I can’t imagine that anyone can prove fraud regarding that 50 year old event. That is was Arpaio and his posse has to do. Obama or his crew may have somehow committed fraud with the online documents, but that doesn’t negate his eligibility. Can Arpaio prove fraud regarding Hawaii’s records? That’s the challenge he faces.
“Can Arpaio prove fraud regarding Hawaii’s records? That’s the challenge he faces.”
_____________________________________
Apario has proven it. Many, many others independently have as well. See videos posted above as small representation of the ‘proof’. The COLB fraud is less obvious but it is still a fraud as well. And with the WH using a browser print-out from SNOPES the possibility this actual ‘document’ still exist must be considered in serious doubt at this point.
The real challenge is probably getting anyone with any sort of authority to care.
Is the AG in Hawaii going to investigate? Of course not. Is the FBI going to formally investigate document tampering and fraud in this matter? Obviously not. Is Congress going to pick up this subject with all the political dynamics that would come it? Hardly.
Using the old saying about the tree in the forest.
The tree fell in the forest and everyone heard it. But will anyone say it fell if no one cares?
Sadly, this is the state of affairs.
So the other states have to trust Onaka when he certified and swore that his letter of verification to AZ SOS Ken Bennett was in compliance with HRS 338-14.3 which requires him to verify any submitted claim that he can certify as “presumed correct”, right?
On that letter of verification Onaka refused to verify these birth facts for Obama: male, Aug 4, 1961, Honolulu, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Barack Hussein Obama.
As you say, Full Faith and Credit means that every state has to accept that those facts CANNOT legally be presumed as true based on Hawaii’s records.
Right?
Please don’t ignore what I’m saying, as you’ve repeatedly done in the past. I’ve told you several times now, that Onaka indirectly confirmed the legal non-validity of Obama’s HI BC. At this point Full Faith and CRedit works AGAINST Obama, because the HI official responsible for making a sworn statement (certification, which in Hawaii is the same thing) has sworn that his verification refusing to verify the above birth facts for Obama is in compliance with the law.
And your analogy is stupid.
You and Mom have never seen the candy bar. You’ve been told there is/was a candy bar. ONLY Dad has said he’s seen the candy bar. The candy bar is supposed to still be someplace WITH Dad.
I think you’ll find that my analogy makes more sense if you read its first sentence correctly: “You put a candy bar in your bedroom at 1:00.”
Conserve America Party Information File.
What do you base this belief on?? He has had dozens and dozens of opportunities, yet he has previously refused to submit it. Georgia advised him to submit evidence in the ballot challenge and he specifically refused. The reason why is pretty obvious.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution requires the court to treat that birth certificate with the same respect that the court has to birth certificates of its own.
Only if it is submitted to the opposing party so it can be evaluated for authenticity.
The birth certificate will be self-authenticating and prima facie evidence. Anyone challenging that birth certificate will have to come up with their own evidence that the facts on the birth certificate are somehow false.
It is only self-authenticating if it is provided ahead of time to the opposing party and if no objection is raised. Short of this, it is considered to be hearsay.
A newspaper from Kenya, for example, will not trump the official record of a state.
So far, Obama has not presented an official record of a state, and second, newspaper accounts are considered self-authenticating under the rules of evidence.
Assertions and speculation won’t do. You need something to PROVE that the state records are false. That’s a mighty tall challenge. What proof do you think a court will accept over its official state records?
Again, Obama has NEVER presented an official state record of anything, and his alleged B/Cs lack the required certification elements as described on Hawaii's DOH rules and procedures.
“You need something to PROVE that the state records are false. That’s a mighty tall challenge.”
Barry’s desperate legal gymnastics in HI and federal courts alone betray a near certainty that his HI state records are false in a way that threatens his eligibility.
Mike Zullo has now gone out on a limb and claimed that the new, previously undisclosed evidence that exposes the LFBC forgery (evidence that obviously could NOT have been used to “get it right the first time”) is in the possession of Arpaio’s posse.
Because HI DOH has “authenticated” the LFBC in a way considered legally valid by at least two state SOSs, Zullo must also believe that the new evidence will convince 100% of skeptics that HI DOH is corruptly hiding a flawed original vital record, IMO.
Time will tell whether Zullo is blowing smoke.
On the day the WH LFBC was released Barry’s attorney pointedly refused to let Barry hold the “original” despite a reporter directly stating that this would help preempt accusations that the document was a forgery. The transcript was on the WH website at least until very recently.
This insistence by Barry’s lawyer on maintaining OBVIOUS “plausible deniability” for Barry against any charge that he personally was involved in a forgery by keeping it out of his hands is extremely incriminating.
Corsi, FReeper Danae and Trump were all responsible for backing Barry into a corner where his personal access to his own BC image was proved by Danae as documented by Corsi in his book that was just hitting the bookstores. Trump just piled onto Corsi’s book.
Just before the election (probably in Tampa) I believe that Corsi, Trump and Arpaio were asked to back off because getting rid of Barry at the ballot box was the first priority and also Arpaio needed to get reelected.
Apparently nothing but giant lightning bolts from the blue, disembodied voices rumbling like thunder and mystic messages in the clouds will convince you.
Noob...with only about 10 comments since last summer, almost all sniping against anyone who is concerned about 0moslem’s non-eligibility.
Troll noob, actually.
Well, it's obvious what yours is.
Read ConstantSkeptic’s meager posting history and you will see what scam he’s running.
Leftist troll.
Again, your analogy is not at all comparable to the situation so:
“You put a candy bar in your bedroom at 1:00.”
is meaningless.
In your analogy, “you” would have to of had possession of the candy bar at some point and now it is missing or eaten.
Only Dad (Hawaii) has the “supposed” candy bar. “You” can’t see it, or access it.
And besides, it’s Dad has only given Mom one LEGAL statement about the “candy bar.”
Mom asks: “Is the candy bar “real?”
Dad answers with a double negative:
“I don’t have no fictitious candy bar.”
Which means:
“I DO have a fictitious candy bar.
Mom is not stupid, knows he used a double negative but since Dad puts money in her bank account, she chooses to BELIEVE that he did not answer her with a DOUBLE NEGATIVE.
So far Obama hasn’t been REQUIRED by any court to submit a birth certificate.
There have been three times in which Hawaii has made official verifications of the information on the birth certificate. I haven’t looked up the ones issued to the secretaries of state, but the one issued for the Mississippi case is pretty clear in stating that the information on record with the State of Hawaii matches the information contained on the copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate which appears on the internet. So yes, if Obama is ever REQUIRED by a court to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate, I believe he will do so.
I am not a lawyer and don’t know the rules of evidence, but I’m sure that there are procedures in place so that all parties are satisfied that an original certified copy from the state is the item submitted into evidence.
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.