Posted on 08/07/2013 6:29:11 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Which different from the posted version.
“We have photographs of the paper original that were taken by Savannah Guthrie.”
How do you know it’s an original document?
The Mississippi lawsuit was originally filed in April, 2012 in order to try to keep Obama off the Misssissippi ballot.
The Hawaii Revised Statute on Letters of Verification:
§338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, 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.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
(d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be a maximum of one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.
(e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1; am L 2010, c 55, §1]
The idea to submit such a letter to Judge Wingate came from the actions of Ken Bennett, the Secretary of State of Arizona who was the first to request such a letter concerning Obama’s birth certificate. Bennett used his Onaka letter to justify placing Obama’s name on the Arizona ballot.
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
Secretary of State Bennett was followed by Kris Kobach, Secretary of State of Kansas who also requested a Letter of Verification from Dr. Onaka and Kobach also used his letter to approve Obama for the Kansas ballot.
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/106576604
What can be viewed in the link to the Mississippi Dems’ Motion exhibit is just one additional generation of photocopying from the original process that you suggested. You can read about that process here:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
If Judge Wingate wants or needs a first generation copy or if he personally wishes to view the original, vault edition, he can issue a court order for it which is allowable under the provisions of Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18(b) (point 9) a confidential birth vital record can be released to: “A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;”
From a legal standpoint, it doesn’t really matter. The White House Press Corps copies were for demonstration purposes, as is the whitehouse.gov PDF image.
Federal Rule of Evidence 1005: Copies of Public Records To Prove Content: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1005
Hawaii Revised Statute: §338-18 Disclosure of records.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM
Dr. Onaka’s certification stamp is clearly visible at the bottom of the copy: “I certify this is a true copy...”
Barry couldn’t get a driver license in HI with a photocopy of Onaka’s signature stamp!
A photocopy is NOT a signed as certified, raised-seal copy.
Hawaii has NEVER released such a copy and Barry’s lawyers have never produced one because Barry has never signed a release for HI or his lawyers to release one or to permit inspection of the claimed 1961 original.
Every forgery has alleged certification on it. When push came to shove and Onaka was legally required to verify everything he could, he would not verify any of the birth facts or that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”. That is our legal answer. Why won’t you accept it?
And the cross-hatches on that photo don’t match the ones that the HDOH uses either...
The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Cold Case Posse has found the document released by the White House on April 27, 2011 is a forgery. The Hawaii Dept. of Health and it’s statements on the birth document are now in serious question.
Eggsactly. Very good first post. Happy Birthday!
“And we know that the White Hut uses this particular machine?”
This from the White House website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/POTUS_taxes.pdf
Open it in Reader and right click anywhere on the document. Select document properties.
Date created: 4/15/2011 6:0817 PM
Date modified: 4/18/2011 11:32:18 AM
Application: Xerox WorkCentre 7655
PDF Producer: Xerox WorkCentre 7655
PDF Version: 1.5 (Acrobat 6.x)
This PDF was created less than two weeks before the LFBC.
I look forward to the filing of a criminal complaint when the Posse’ identifies and names the forger.
So the PDF, an electronic file, was created on Friday the 15th of April 2011 and then modified the following Monday. Then on the next Monday someone flies out there to pick up an “electronic” file?
No evidence that they picked up an electronic file. In fact, the DOH told WND’s document expert that they had nothing to do with the White House PDF.
BTW, here is yesterday’s news about the Xerox WorkCentre scanners:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/xerox-machines-change-documents-scanning/story?id=19895331
“So the PDF, an electronic file, was created on Friday the 15th of April 2011”
The file I linked to is not the LFBC PDF but Obama’s 2010 tax return.
Exactly my point. No one flew anywhere to pick up anything. It was never a paper document, at least not in the whole that it is being presented.
That’s not what the Governor’s office said in their press release:
“President Obama authorized Ms. Corley to pick up the documents. On April 25, 2011, Ms. Corley appeared in person at the Hawai„i State Department of Health building in Honolulu, paid the requisite fee, and was given the two certified copies, a response letter from Director Fuddy to President Obama, and a receipt for payment.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
And in Dr. Fuddy’s letter she says they made two certified copies.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/Birth_Certificate_Request.PDF
But I’m sure their all lying.
So your position is that two certified copies of the original record exist?
The Secretaries of State in Arizona and Kansas who asked for Letters of Verification and then used them would disagree with you.
We are all waiting to see what Judge Wingate will do with his Letter from Onaka.
Barring evidence to the contrary, yes there were two certified copies. The DOH even told Ivan Zatkovich how they were made.
“A representative of the Hawaii Department of Health described how the copy of the Obama Birth Certificate was produced. She stated that the copy of Obama’s birth certificate was produced by taking the original paper birth certificate, which was black printing on white paper. The original is then placed on the photocopy machine and that image is copied onto green ‘safety paper’. That green copy is then stamped, dated and signed by the State Registrar.”
http://www.ecompconsultants.com/news/Obama-report.pdf
Fair enough.
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.