“We all know this. So what?”
For the first timed a COURT CERTIFIED forensic document examiner who has met the extremely high standartd (Daubert Standard) as a federal expert witness has produced a report that, unless successfully challenged meets the Federal Rules of Evidence if a court orders a discovery hearing on the authenticity of the White House pdf:
“42. Taking it a step further, investigators sought an independent authority on forensic document examination that had no previous connection with our inquiry. Investigators commissioned a court certified handwriting analyst and forensic document examiner with over 20 years of experience providing document expertise to legal and law enforcement communities, corporations, financial institutions and private individuals for this task.”
IANAL, but I had to become familiar with the “Daubert standard” that my expert witnesses would be subjected to being challenged on during my jury trail for custody of my son. Here are the key points that came out of the SCOTUS Daubert case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard
“The Daubert standard provides a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses’ testimony during United States federal legal proceedings.”
“In 2011, Rule 702 was again amended to make the language clearer. The rule now reads:
RULE 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESSES
“A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) The experts scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.”
(Hawaii criminal conspiracy)
Arizonas Verification Attempts Thwarted
61. Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett requested verification of Mr. Obamas 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.
“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.