Posted on 05/15/2013 3:59:44 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
43. Investigators requested an independent review of our findings in respect to the long-form birth certificate image that fell within his field of expertise.
44. Upon the conclusion of our expert’s examination he issued an independent 40 page forensic report in which he verified our investigational finding and validating conclusion in full agreement with the finds of investigators. He concluded:
• “…based on my observations and findings, it is clear that Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured documented created by utilizing material from various sources.” and
• “In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated.”
Authenticity of White House Released Birth Certificate Image
45. Investigators have determined beyond probable cause that the computer image released on April 27, 2011 by the White House, and purporting to be a true computer copy of Mr. Obama’s long form birth certificate, is not a scan of an original hard copy document. It is, in fact, an undeniable computer generated forgery created with the sole intent to deceive the public by commission of felonious fraudulent acts.
46. Sheriff Arpaio’s investigators have determined the document ( the .pdf file released by the White House) was created entirely by human intervention, and not by the actions of random computerization. As such, the White house computer image cannot be relied upon as bona fide factual record of the birth event that it attempts to depict. [...]
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
“Now that more eyes have been opened to the corrupt liar known as BHS, more people may be willing to consider the possibility that the BC isn’t on the up-and-up.”
Exactly. Many of these issues have been off limits in part due to Obama’s relative popularity & to a greater degree to the MSM’s unified, protective phalanx. Now his polls are slipping & the MSM seems genuinely irked w him. Of course they cd & probably wd close ranks again if Obama appears to be seriously vulnerable. But by then it may be too late.
(Hawaii criminal conspiracy)
Arizona’s Verification Attempts Thwarted
61. Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett requested verification of Mr. Obama’s birth records from the State of Hawaii Department of Health:
62. “Please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.”
63. However, Hawaii Department of Health State Registrar Dr. Alvin T. Onaka did not verify the White House computer image as a true or accurate representation of the original birth record, only responding, “the information in the copy … that you attached with your request matches the original record in our file.”
64. Hawaii officials cleverly focused on the representation of information depicted in the fraudulent image diverting attention to the foundation of the request of Secretary of State Bennett. “Please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files.”
65. “Information” is not a verification of the document (.pdf file) as a whole.
66. A fraudulently created document often times contains matching information on some level when compared to some other document of record, however, the fact that some information may match in a file does not verify the legitimacy of the document as a whole.
67. In this case the .pdf image presented by the White House to the public, is in the appearance of what the unsuspecting public would perceived to be a true copy of an official document and therefore accepted on face value. This also includes the fabrication and appearance of green security paper background that one would expect to be used on such an official document. The creation and use of this background would solely be used to give the perception of authenticity in an official capacity.
68. Further, Hawaii has not acknowledged that they ever created or released an electronic computer created .pdf file containing an image of the Barack Hussein Obama II Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth to the White House or to the attorney for Barack Hussein Obama II. They also did not verify how and when information may have been added or deleted for the original file and for what purpose.
Good call, windflier!
We have the criminal aspect of what o and his henchmen have done recently, and continue to do; its a dynamic/changing/ongoing event that can have additional crimes done by the perps.
This is indeed a separate category from an event years in the past, that is more static and is an unchanging thing.
Its not the initial event, its the cover-up.
Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii
104. Mr. Abercrombie has publicly stated that he was present when Mr. Obama was born. There is no evidence to support this claim. No doctor or nurse or persons who attended Mr. Obama’s birth has come forward to say so. No one has ever come forward to say he or she recalls having seen either Mr. Obama or his parents together at any social event when he was an infant.
105. It is not surprising; therefore, that Governor Abercrombie later recanted that statement that he had seen Mr. Obama’s parents with their new-born so. He acknowledged that he had not seen them at any hospital, although he said he remembered having seen Mr. Obama as a child with his parents at social events.
106. Once Mr. Abercrombie had become Governor, he told the Honolulu Star Advertiser on January 20, 2011, that he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, because he feared the continuing eligibility controversy might hurt the President’s chances of re-election in 2012.
107. Mr. Abercrombie, who is a member of Mr. Obama’s political party, said that the birth certificate issue would otherwise have “political implications” for the presidential election “that we simply cannot have.”
108. Mr. Abercrombie did not subsequently report that either he or the Hawaii Department of Health had found Mr. Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. The governor only suggested his investigation to date had identified an unspecified listing or notation of Mr. Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives: “It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down.”
109. This being the case, this document as reported would clearly be out of the chain of custody of the Hawaii Department of Health. Hence, the authenticity of that written record and the integrity of that record cannot be verified or sufficiently secured to prevent tampering.
110. To date, the purported undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Governor Abercrombie has claimed to have discovered and has described as being “actually written” has never been made public.
Hawaii State Practices Allow Fraudulent U.S. Citizenship
134. Investigators found a high potential for fraud in the registration and issuance of Hawaii birth certification documents. It was discovered to be evident in: 1) lax statutory regulation and 2) through obscure evidentiary requirements in establishing factual verification of the information required in the reporting of legitimate births occurring within the state of Hawaii.
135. In 1982, Hawaii revised a long standing statute (§ 338.17.8) allowing the issuance of birth certificates to children born out of state. Hawaii declares these foreign born children to be American citizens simply by virtue of an application by any adult making representations on behalf of the parents, and simply supplying documentation substantiating the parents had resided in Hawaii and paid income tax to the state Hawaii for one year prior to the birth of the child. Thus, by statutory provision, Hawaii has granted upon itself the unique power to confer citizenship to children not born in the United States, and to children not born to United States citizen parents, but to children actually born on foreign soil.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for Children Born Out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the Director of Health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the Director of Health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the Director of Health in any manner that the Director shall deem appropriate. The Director of Health may also adopt any rules pursuant to Chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
136. The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to Chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
137. These implications of this law is evidenced by the discovery of correspondence between the Department of Health Director George Yuen, in support of the measure, and State Representative Herbert A .Segawa. The March 1st 1982 document clearly shows the effect this proposed Bill H.B. 3016-82 would it have become law. The document recognized the fact that the department would have to issue birth certificates to children worldwide if the child’s parents could prove they were in fact legal residents of the Territory or State of Hawaii. Legal residents as categorized by Hawaii tax code, not Untied States citizens.
138. There is nothing in Hawaii Revised Statute § 338.17.8 to require that this birth certificate be marked as the child being born out of state, nor that was the child born within the United States or its territories. There is no requirement in this statute that at least one parent provide proof of United States citizenship.
139. This section only requires a declaration (and proof which is not defined and is based upon requirements deemed appropriate by the Director) that the parents were residents of Hawaii. It does not require that the parents were citizens of the United States.
140. By statutory provision Hawaii has granted upon itself the unique power to confer citizenship to children not born in the United States, and to children not born to United States citizen parents, but to children actually born on foreign soil. Conceivably, the parents and child may never have set foot on United States soil. Hawaii declares these foreign born children American citizens simply by virtue of an application of any adult, making representations on behalf of the parents and simply supplying documentation substantiating the parents had resided in Hawaii and paid income tax to the state Hawaii, for one year prior to the birth of the child.
141. The authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the US is conferred upon the Attorney General only, not the State of Hawaii.
142. It would appear that Hawaii Revised Statute § 338.17.8 is in direct conflict with the Immigration and Nationality Act, in that United States citizenship maybe be conferred to an individual who is not entitled to such citizenship.
143. See I.N.A. §§ 301, et seq., which comprehensively regulates how a child born out of the United States acquires U.S. Citizenship. Even this would require at least on parent be a United States citizen at the time of the birth.
144. This comprehensive regulation would clearly be meant to exclude any regulation in the area by the States. Arizona v. United States, 11-182 (June, 2012).
145. Compulsory registration of births, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-8 requires all births of be registered. It also permits the registration for an unattended birth to be accepted on the representation of only one of the parents. No other witnesses are necessary for a claimed unattended birth. Conceivably, a parent could have given birth outside of the U.S., and claimed that it was an unattended birth (no witnesses) in Honolulu.
146. Local registrar to prepare birth certificate, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-8 is bristling with the fraudulent potential by compelling the local registrar to prepare a birth certificate for an alleged unattended birth based solely uncorroborated testimony from anyone claiming to have had knowledge of the birth taking place.
147. Under this statute, a birth could exist outside of the U.S., and any person could represent false information to the local registrar. The registrar is compelled to file the certificate.
148. Additionally, there is no requirement for a parent or relative, providing identification to be present at time of registration. Any person, a relative, friend or stranger may registrar the birth of a child while both the mother and baby were outside of the country.
149. There is no verification process and no way to be certain of the actual identify of the parents.
H.R.S §338-6, Current Law as of October 25, 2009
150. Delayed or altered certificates, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-18. Utilizing this Statute, a person may apply for a delayed or amended certificate having one year to do so from time of birth. There is no verification to determine why the registration is late. The Statute also allows any person “born” in the Territory of Hawaii to file or amend a certificate.
151. This would include that any adult could claim their birth was never reported a decade later, file for a birth certificate. The validity of the three types of birth filings were so questionable that even Hawaii would not accept them as “Prima Facia Evidence”.
152. This Statute would require the birth certificate be plainly marked, “Delayed”, or “Altered” and the probative value would determine by the official to whom the certificate was being offered. We believe it is safe to conclude that even the State of Hawaii did not have confidence in the representations on this document.
188. Searching over a several year period, various researchers have found repeated listings of births to Japanese parents as being reported in the newspapers as Hawaiian births, even though the children were found to be born in Japan. These findings tend to reinforce what we learned on our visits to Hawaii: that it was then the widely-recognized practice in Hawaii, later regularized by statute, to certify foreign births to Hawaiian parents as Hawaiian births.
189. In 1961, the Hawaii Department of Health appears to have used local area offices outside Honolulu as reporting centers where parents and other family members could represent children born to the family as Hawaiian births, without submitting any proof the child was actually born in Hawaii. This practice was also statutorily permitted.
190. It is plausible that an original birth record of some type for Mr. Obama may exist in Hawaii. However, as noted elsewhere, our investigation has discovered that at that time Hawaiian law contained a specific provision that permitted a Hawaiian parent of a child born anywhere in the world or any adult purporting to represent that parent, the right to register the child as Hawaiian-born.
191. It is for this reason that two entries in the “Births” column of the local newspapers at the time do not constitute evidence that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. They are merely evidence suggesting that a birth certificate of some type was issued for him in Hawaii, and they tell us nothing about whether or not he was born there. In particular they do not – as the White House document purports to do – identify the hospital of birth. Hawaii law permits various forms of registration and supplementation at later dates, with different information. The mere issuance of a birth record does not confirm the birth took place within the state of Hawaii or in the United States.
An open invitation to two things:
To check out this active research thread, link to a comment with Malik’s interview about “growing up” with Barack. Which one, pray tell? Obviously not the one who bears the name now.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2913366/posts?page=1418#1418
Next, an invitation to the brand spanking new Zero’s Background Research Ping list, freepmail me if you want on, it will not be a very busy list. Only new research threads, or existing threads that have important new info on them.
Now with things getting very “interesting” not only with Zullp and Arpaio, but the general house of cards starting to shake a bit, more people may get interested in who the guy in the WH actually is (starting with who he isn’t).
“if a court orders a discovery hearing on the authenticity of the White House pdf”
That is a mighty big if.
This new affidavit was attached to Klayman’s Motion to Strike the Amicus Curiae Brief of the Alabama Democratic Party.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/141712785/McInnish-v-Chapman-Motion-to-Strike-Amicus-Curiae
It is being introduced only for that limited issue.
Klayman is asking the Court to strike the ADP amicus brief because it contains new evidence and that is not allowed in an appeals case, but if the Court should decide not to strike the amicus brief then he is asking the court to also consider this new affidavit (even though it too is new evidence).
We’ll just have to wait to see what happens. There are a several of possibilities.
Gotta get back to this later
Thanks for the ping!
Oops!
Posted on the wrong thread, (cough), wiggle, red faced.
Gosh! I’ve never posted anything on teh wrong thread!
(ahem, I have actually. But I’ve done worse - at least twice, posted something I meant to be freepmail, on the thread. Quite senitive messages, too...)
Please add me to the list.
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.