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 ...
You're one dense OBot Foggy. It has been explain to you many times.
In order for Dr. Onaka's statement to be valid, the facts don't have to be TRUE. They just have to match what the WH CoLB asserts. Dr Onaka knows what facts the DoH has on file. He obviously doesn't know for sure that those facts are actually true.
E.g., the long form lists Dr. David Sinclair as the obstetrician who delivered Obama in 1961. There have been claims it was actually Dr. Rodney T. West, famously quoted as having said at the time, "Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that's something to write home about." Even if it were somehow come out that Dr. West was the actual obstetrician, Dr. Onaka's certification would still be valid, because it refers to the facts as known by the DoH, even though those might not be the real facts. Proof that West did the delivery would have to be produced separately.
Of course, in court, the certificate, backed up by Dr. Onaka's declaration, will rule. The presumption would be that the certificate is true. In order to attack the certificate, you would need strong evidence that material facts in it are not true — e.g., he was actually born in Kenya or similar. The burden would fall entirely on you to disprove what the certificate says. And pixels and layers won't hack it, given Onaka's confirmation.
“Competent scanners make a flat copy, then saving it in the document PDF preservation software that should also be flat.”
And in Obama WH birf cert, it should have been a flat document being scanned. It should have been a flat piece of paper. It really defies logic that the document was broken up into multiple layers and even that does not explain all the errors and anomalies in the birf certificate.
That's obviously true. Even if Obama were to turn out to have been born in Mombasa, it would not make a liar out of Dr Onaka, who would have been a high school kid at the time of Obama's birth.
However, the fact that Dr Onaka is able to verify that the facts on the certificate match those on file with the DoH makes it just as pointless to argue that the document(s) are somehow forged as it would be to forge them.
“Of course, in court, the certificate, backed up by Dr. Onaka’s declaration, will rule.”
So only one person, Onaka, needed to be bribed or threatened or willingly volunteered into lying to save Barry’s biscuits...and his campaign had hundreds of $ millions available to get at Onaka, Abercrombie and a few other past and present HI officials to bribe with $$ or threats.
Given that, what, the last three governors of Barry’s home state went to jail and numerous other state governors and high officials have taken money to violate the law, maybe Onaka isn’t bending over backwards to tell the truth, as buttedezillion suggests, but is flat-out lying!
Gotta prove it. Otherwise, the certificate will stand.
“Competent scanners make a flat copy, then saving it in the document PDF preservation software that should also be flat.”
________________________________________________________________
Just as their replication apparently did. But that is structurally different that the forgery.
No clipping mask in the ‘replication’.
A scanner that applies a clipping mask has a name - defective.
You are totally ignoring everything I have pointed out about Hawaii statute which says that birth certificates are prima facie evidence UNLESS THEY ARE LATE AND/OR ALTERED. The ONLY lawful reason for Onaka to refuse to verify the claims submitted on the verification application form if those claims match what is on the BC they have is if the BC they have is not prima facia evidence and so Onaka is not legally allowed to presume that the claimed facts are true.
How many times do I have to say this? I can’t think of any way to be more explicit or clear on this. Late and altered BC’s are NOT PRIMA FACIA (legally presumed true, taken at face value) EVIDENCE. The whole point of asking for facts to be verified is to find out if those particular claims have any legal validity.
Onaka thus effectively confirmed that the BC they have is NOT prima facia evidence/legally valid. He can’t verify the facts because they are NOT legally presumed to be true. The burden of proof falls on whoever is making those claims - NOT on those who disbelieve the claims. And that is precisely why Obama will let a decorated military surgeon lose his livelihood and sit in jail (instead of being in Afghanistan treating wounded heroes) rather than simply allow this non-embarrassing, supposedly run-of-the-mill, routine BC to be seen by anybody but his lackeys. If any honest person actually saw it they would see that it had a 2006 amendment supported by an affidavit, which is not necessary for a Kapiolani birth and thus totally blows the credibility of the Kapiolani birth claim.
So everything you are saying is backwards because you fail to account for the impact of the BC lacking the prima facia standard because it is late and/or altered. Do not say a word more until you understand what difference that prima facia rating makes.
If the BC was prima facia evidence, then the claims on it would be presumed true, Onaka would verify all the facts claimed on it, and the burden of proof would fall on “the birthers”.
If the BC is not prima facia evidence, the claims could not be legally presumed to be true, Onaka would refuse to verify the facts even though the claims match what is on their non-valid BC at the HDOH, and the legal burden to prove those claims would fall on Obama. And that is precisely what has happened. Onaka has refused to verify the truth of any birth claims even though he has said that the submitted claims match what is claimed on the BC they have.
The statute says that a verification is certification that the event actually happened as claimed by the applicant for the verification. So Onaka can’t just verify a claim because it matches what is on a BC. It has to match what is on a VALID/PRIMA FACIE BC. That is the whole question being asked of Onaka: Which of the following birth facts does the State of HI legally presume to be true according to the standards set up in HI statute: Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Husseing Obama? Onaka verified that they have a BC that claims a Honolulu birth. He did not verify that ANY of the claims on the BC are legally presumed to be true. Nowhere are the words “WAS BORN” on that verification. Nowhere is the word TRUE used on that verification. Nowhere does Onaka make any claim about what actually happened.
BG2. I don’t know how to be more clear about this. HRS 338-17 says that the probative value of late and altered BC’s has to be determined by the administrative or judicial official or body to whom the BC is presented as evidence. All other BC’s are expressly given the status of prima facie evidence. You have GOT to know what those words mean, in order for any of this to make sense. Prima facia means “on its face”. It is to be taken at face value, presumed to be true, because it has already met the standards required to have some legal credibility. Prima facia evidence can still be refuted and disproven, but unless it IS refuted and disproven the claims are legally presumed to be true. That is an evidentiary standard.
The HDOH’s Administrative Rules say what standards are acceptable for birth claims before a BC is given the label of LATE or ALTERED. If the BC isn’t completed with all the required information within a year of the birth, it is considered suspect and receives the LATE classification. If major administrative changes are made to it - changes so large that they call into question how any honest person could have made such a “mistake” - it calls into question the honesty of all the claims and the BC is labeled as ALTERED. The LATE and ALTERED status are both legal red flags, to say that these claims need further scrutiny. Because those BC’s are not prima facia evidence, they are basically just a rumor, having no weight at all until a judge looks at all the contradictory evidence, sorts it all out according to prescribed legal evidentiary standards, and determines whether the claims are legally credible.
None of that is Onaka’s job. His job is to verify any facts that are on a prima facia/valid/unflagged BC and to refuse to verify any claims made on a BC flagged as LATE or ALTERED, which according to HI statute can only legally be sorted out by judicial and administrative officials qualified to apply the Federal Rules of Evidence.
He can say that the claims match what is on the non-valid BC, but that doesn’t mean anything because the BC itself has no legal value.
Before you say anything else, please tell me whether or not you “get it”. Do you understand the difference between a prima facia BC and a LATE and/or ALTERED BC, and why Onaka has to verify the presumed truth of facts claimed on the former and has to refuse to verify the presumed truth of facts claimed on the latter? Do you understand that claims matching what is on a legally-worthless BC are just as legally worthless as the non-valid BC on which they are claimed?
I’m still awaiting an answer to my questions in this one. Here they are again:
“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?”
“...the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.”
in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified shall be furnished.
So why wasn’t a certified copy issued? Why resort to a verification letter?
If you open the “replication” on a Mac in Preview and select Save as PDF there will be a clipping mask.
Onaka has to obey the HI statutes which say that the probative value of LATE and ALTERED BC’s can only be determined by judicial or administrative officials or bodies. On their own, those BC’s have NO probative value whatsoever. They are legally considered a rumor, nothing more, nothing less. Onaka can’t certify that what is legally no more than a rumor is actually the way something happened. He is legally forbidden from treating those claims as anything more than a rumor.
If a BC is VALID it is declared by HI statute to be prima facia evidence - that is, Onaka is LEGALLY REQUIRED to presume that the facts are true. It has nothing to do with his personal knowledge and everything to do with the standards that HI has set up for evaluating the credibility of claims submitted to them. Onaka doesn’t decide any of that; he only reports what Hawaii’s statutes say he has to presume about those claims. Unless the BC is LATE or ALTERED, he has to presume the claims are true. If the BC is LATE or ALTERED he has to presume it is an as-of-yet-unsubstantiated rumor and nothing more. He has to report that they have a record for that person but he cannot verify that the claims on that record are true.
“BG2. I don’t know how to be more clear about this. HRS 338-17 says that the probative value of late and altered BC’s has to be determined by the administrative or judicial official or body to whom the BC is presented as evidence.”
__
Really, you can be more clear. Much more clear.
HRS §338-16 clearly states that late and altered birth certificates shall ‘be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.’
Since neither the COLB or the LFBC is so marked, why are you arguing as though they were?
“I’m still awaiting an answer to my questions in this one.”
__
LOL, BZ! That’s quite a barrage of questions, and I’m having trouble making sense out of some of them.
Why don’t you pick one or two of your favorites, and maybe we can have a nice calm discussion about them?
Really, take a deep breath.
Why must State election officials and courts rely on a verification letter when an image reputed to be that of the LFBC is posted publicly? Why the extra work? Why not present the document?
“So why wasn’t a certified copy issued? Why resort to a verification letter?”
__
That’s a good question. I’ve often wondered about it myself.
Of course, I don’t know what the President was thinking, but if I were President, I probably would have done the same thing, for two main reasons.
1) Because using certified copes would likely involve having multiple certified copies floating around. No matter how other people may be trivializing the birth certificate, it is an official — and very personal — document. Each certified copy is an original document, an original birth certificate of the President of the United States. I think it’s smart to keep those to a minimum, at least while the litigation is on a state level. In a hypothetical major Federal case or Congressional investigation, I’d probably feel differently.
2) There’s less to argue about in a Letter of Verification. With a birth certificate, there could be, for example, demands for a forensic investigation into the paper and the ink and the background and the border....
But a Letter of Verification is just that, a letter with a stamp and a seal. Unlike with a birth certificate, all that matters is the contents of the letter, and not its appearance. And since any question about where the President was born is a question of content rather than a question of appearance, the LoV seems simpler and more direct.
Thanks for letting me speculate. It’s all just a guess, but it’s one I’ve been thinking about.
The answer is quite obvious.
State election officials and courts are made to rely on a verification letter to avoid either (1) presentment of a perjurious fraudulent document or (2) presentment of a certified copy displaying “late” or “amended”.
Wait, explain that to me. If the BC is perjurious, then isn’t the LoV perjurious too? I’m not following your logic.
And why do you think the documents are marked “late” or “amended” when none of the images we’ve seen depict them that way?
Point 1 is not credible, why would there be “multiple certified copies floating around”?
Point 2 is not credible, every criticism you hypothesize for a BC could equally apply to a verification letter.
Issuance of a certified copy of a BC is routine. It happens multiple times every day throughout the United States.
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.