Posted on 08/07/2013 6:29:11 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
The following image is a composite created by scanning the WH LFBC using Xerox WorkCentre 7655 upside down using the automatic feeder. The resulting file was opened in Preview, the image rotated 180 degrees and printed to PDF. The resulting PDF was opened in preview, the layers unlocked and moved to the side. In addition, a close up of the signature was ‘blown up’ to show how the background layer, not surprisingly, has filled in some of the white that resulted from the separation of the background and foreground layers.
Note how for example the signature block is fully separated.
(Excerpt) Read more at nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
None of those sections are even remotely pertinent!
Look at the title — “Territorial Public Health Statistics Act.” Now, I wonder, why would it say “Territorial”? Could it be that this was the law in the days of the Territory of Hawaii rather than in the State of Hawaii?
Earth to OBot come in OBot...
Ummm Obama dingaling, those 1957 HI statutes were still in effect in 1961 when Obama was birfed .
The HI statutes are clear. Birth certificates are prima facia evidence UNLESS they are late and/or altered. Prima facia means that the legal presumption is that the claims are true. So if a claim is made on a record that is not late or altered, then it is legally presumed to be true and Onaka would have to verify those facts when requested to do so.
If the claims are made on a late or altered BC, he cannot presume that they are true. He can’t verify anything then, except that a BC exists for that person.
And that is why it doesn’t work to just say that if there is verification of ANYTHING it is verification of EVERYTHING. They have to be able to verify the existence of a birth record for a person if they’ve got one for them - otherwise nobody would even know that there was any claim on the books, to be brought forward in a court case (for example). But they are required to store and keep track of everything that’s been submitted to them, even if it’s not prima facia evidence. It could literally be a crayon scratching on a piece of toilet paper, as in the funny illustrations, and Hawaii would have to keep track of that birth record and acknowledge its existence if somebody requested to know about it. But at the same time, they could not verify the truth of any of the FACTS claimed on that record, because it is not legally presumed to be true. It is hearsay, a claim that would have to be taken up in an administrative or judicial proceeding so THE JUDGE OR ADMINISTRATOR can apply the rules of evidence and see whether the claims are suitably substantiated. Onaka isn’t equipped or authorized to do that kind of analysis. He only needs to know if the BC is late or altered; if it is he leaves it up to the judges to sort out. He verifies that they have a BC but cannot verify the truth of any of the claims on that BC.
The verification application is an application to have the registrar verify whether the submitted major administrative facts (name, date, gender, birth city, birth island, mother, and father) are legally presumed to be true. It’s not asking what is on this or that piece of paper, what matches what, or anything else. The legal question being asked on that application form is this: Which of these facts does the State of HI presume to be true: that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama.
Onaka would not verify that ANY of those facts were presumed to be true. He would not verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. He was asked to verify FROM THE BIRTH RECORD various items such as hospital name, mother’s date of birth, etc. If he could verify the TRUTH of any of those facts he would also have to verify all the above facts too. Obviously he is not verifying the TRUTH of those facts but is instead verifying that they are FROM THE BIRTH RECORD, as Bennett’s words technically said. And those things are claimed on the birth record; they just can’t be presumed to be true because that record itself is late or altered and doesn’t qualify as prima facia evidence.
Do you understand what I am saying? This is what is in the statutes, by which Alvin Onaka is legally bound. The Klayman letter that I gave you the link to gives the citations of the statutes and shows them.
It’s not my confusion. You’re the one making an objection and you still aren’t making sense.
Ah, where to even start.
First of all, you can’t be serious that taking a photo of a document with one field covered invalidates the document. As long as the document hasn’t been permanently defaced, it’s as valid as it ever was.
Next, you are right, we see what are undeniably photos of a piece of paper that looks like a COLB and bears what appear to be a seal and a stamp.
I’m afraid that’s all it takes. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the piece of paper in those photos is a self-authenticating document. You may not like it, but the law is absolutely clear (FRE 902). That law will be applied even if those reporters are hippies.
And you are foolish to fault them for not being document experts. They were there not to analyze the document but to photograph it. There’s no questions that they did that. No one is relying on their words for anything except that they took the pictures.
And Hawaii has frequently confirmed that the information in the documents is correct.
Other than the preposterous pretense that covering a document temporarily magically renders it invalid, what do you see as actual evidence that the COLB is fake? Not things that makes you suspicious, like hippie photographers, but things that would actually qualify as evidence?
The Hawaiian Dept. Of Health officials refused to acknowledge formally that the COLB in those images was authentic after multiple requests.
Nothin to see, move along.
“And Hawaii has frequently confirmed that the information in the documents is correct.”
Hawaii has NEVER confirmed that the information on the short form COLB is correct? Not once have they ever acknowledged it.
The “seal” doesn’t bend/distort when the paper it is supposedly on is folded. Classic sign of the “seal” being C&P’ed onto a photo of a folded piece of paper.
Ask yourself why the COLB that was supposedly scanned on the same copier as the long-form, using the same protocols and settings, wasn’t separated into the background layer and the other layers, etc. Why did the COLB “scan” behave so differently than the long-form “scan”, when it was supposedly done on the same machine in the same way? Keep in mind that Bob Bauer spent quite a bit of time explaining at the gaggle how the COLB should have been enough and the long-form is just frosting. So why did they “scan” that oh-so-important-and-credible document on such low-quality settings that it didn’t even pick up the background cross-hatches, which is part of the security features to show the authenticity of a document? Is it because they DIDN’T scan it - they just took it from snopes.com, as one of the lines on the copy shows? Why would they scan in a print-out of a snopes page, on a low-quality setting?
The press was given a “copy” of the long-form. It was presumably scanned on the same Xerox machine that separated the long-form into different layers, with background, etc. But when the file from that scan was printed out for the press it had no security background on it at all. The standard protocols wouldn’t turn off that layer all by itself, since it didn’t do that on the long-form scan. Did somebody manually turn that off after the Xerox scan? If so, why?
Security paper has hatches to help make it non-transparent - so nothing will show through from whatever page the BC is sitting on. But when that long-form was scanned for the press, the scan picked up the image of the snopes COLB copy that was apparently sitting underneath that security-paper long-form. The Xerox could see that deeply - a poor copy on another page below the security document being scanned - but did not pick up the security cross-hatches?
And Hawaii ultimately only gave him a document after Bennett said publicly that he would put Obama’s name on the ballot as long as Hawaii sent him SOMETHING. So they sent him a document with mismatched signature and seal, verifying that Obama has a legally non-valid HI BC. And true to his word (but not his oath), Bennett put Obama on the ballot.
Bennett promised to put Obama on the ballot even if Hawaii said Obama was a total fraud. And that’s exactly what Hawaii legally said in that verification. We have our legal answers already, but because TPM Muckraker is a piss-colored journalist, it got reported as the exact opposite of what it legally said.
And when asked by a Freeper why the date of birth was not verified, Bennett responded that it must have been a mistake.
IOW, Bennett assumed that Onaka got his letter of verification wrong. Bennett believed what he knew to be the OPPOSITE of what Onaka technically said on the verification.
In addition to the “seal” being C&P’ed onto the COLB and the exif data showing the falseness of the story of how and when the Factcheck photos were taken, Onaka’s refusal to verify the facts of birth that are contained on the COLB shows that the COLB is not genuine. If it was genuine there would be no reason to refuse to verify any of those facts.
In addition, the HDOH, the head of the OIP, and another attorney at the OIP all effectively confirmed through legally-binding FOIA-type responses that there were receipts to amend Obama’s BC and affidavits filed to support the claims on the BC (which would not be necessary if it was a Kapiolani birth as claimed; affidavits would only be necessary for an unattended birth, late filing, or amendment).
So the COLB has big, big problems. Which might explain why they used a printout from snopes.com in the packet they gave the press...
The Territorial statutes concerning vital records were not converted to state statutes until 1962. I’ve got both versions; the conversion pretty much just involved changing the territorial references to the word “state”. So technically what Red Steel posted is what was in effect in August of 1961.
But you may find it interesting that the long-form death certificate for Virginia Sunahara has “STATE OF HAWAII” at the top of the form, but the first line of entries has T.H. File No - T. H. being the abbreviation for Territory of Hawaii. So we’ve got a State of Hawaii birth certificate form printed up with a place for a Territory of Hawaii File No.
That single top line in Sunahara’s death certificate actually contains 4 blatant anomalies that took extra work for the HDOh worker to put into that line.
When something is legitimate, one should have NO FEAR that others find it fake because one knows it's real, right? Think about that. The green security paper was added to make people think the bc is legitimate. Why the worry?
I think the addition of the green bkgrnd occurred long after the bc elements themselves were tinkered with.
I figured he was either a fogblower or an official administration hireling, just a cursory look at his posting history says “dedicated and possibly paid obot”.
The piece of paper would be self-authenticating. But Obama has never been willing to present that piece of paper to a judge or administrative official. Instead, we’ve got photos with exif data saying they were taken months earlier than the story given by those who supposedly took the photos - and the photos they supposedly took have a seal that forgot to bend when the paper it was on bent.
The paper they photographed did not have a seal on it. That could explain why no seal showed up in the first 2 versions of the “scan” that appeared on the web. The “seal” only appeared after people noticed it was missing. Just like the bottom fold of a tri-fold didn’t appear until somebody noticed it was missing...
So why do YOU think Obama won’t submit any of this admissible evidence into court? Or better yet, why wouldn’t he show the paper to Lt Col Lakin’s superiors so a guy with a conscience who intended to keep his oath of office could go to Afghanistan and treat wounded soldiers with a clear conscience? Didn’t have to be a big, scary judicial proceeding. Coulda just been a simple look so somebody credible could see a real seal. Piece of cake. Instead, Obama stiffed Lakin just like he stiffed Ty Woods and the other guys in Benghazi, as well as the SEAL Team 6 members set up to be killed in Extortion 17. The “inconvenience” of THE KING is worth the livelihood of a decorated military surgeon and the lives of a couple dozen of our finest military men, huh? They should be honored to die for a man who couldn’t be bothered to let our military heroes see what he supposedly let a couple of lying punks in Chicago see, right?
I cannot possibly express what a stinking coward this piece of slime in the White House is.
But why do YOU say he refused to let Lakin’s superior’s put his mind at rest, when it would have been so easy to just show them what he allowed Jess Hennig and Joe Miller to see?
And when expressly asked in a legal request - when Onaka was effectively put under oath - Onaka would not verify the truth of any of the claims on the COLB or the long-form.
All the other HI officials have used carefully-parsed statements, have not been been under oath, and in saying ANYTHING broke their own professed legal obligation to not disclose any of the things they supposedly disclosed.
Did I mention that these officials oversaw the fabrication of the 1960-64 birth index and Virginia Sunahara’s death certificate, at the very least....?
This #313 section bears repeating:
“...In addition,the HDOH,the head of the OIP,and another attorney at the OIP all effectively confirmed through legally-binding FOIA-type responses that there were receipts to amend Obama’s BC and affidavits filed to support the claims on the BC (which would not be necessary if it was a Kapiolani birth as claimed; affidavits would only be necessary for an unattended birth,late filing,or amendment). ...”
And the question then is, WHAT was in the “amend” part(s)?????
He’s not being paid by anyone. He’s not sufficiently competent to be making $ at what he does. I once asked him what his biggest criticisms of Obama were. He threw a hissy fit of idiotic proportions. Nobody is going to pay a person who so embarrasses himself over a question like that. This is a conservative site. Such a question is bound to arise sooner or later. A paid troll wd have a less stupid/immature response ready for it.
Personally I think it’s Foggy. The nastiness is the giveaway. Foggy really hates conservatives. He can only keep himself in check for so long, & then the nastiness comes spewing out [as it did, for example, when he was asked to criticize Obama]. Jmo.
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.