Posted on 04/23/2024 5:16:50 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
(Apr. 23, 2024) – On Thursday, The Post & Email published an article reporting the National Archives’ displaying of an “unauthenticated” long-form birth certificate image purportedly issued by the State of Hawaii in 2011 to Barack Hussein Obama.
The revelation was made by Mike Zullo, lead investigator of a 5+-year probe into the image’s authenticity launched by then-Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joseph Arpaio at the request of more than 100 of his constituents and delegated to his “Cold Case Posse.”
Concerns had arisen soon after Obama, the junior first-term U.S. senator from Illinois, announced his presidential ambitions in February 2007 amid numerous reports of his birth overseas, presumably precluding him from being a “natural born Citizen,” as Article II of the Constitution requires of the president.
While such reports were not contested prior to Obama’s announcement, after launching his campaign he claimed to have been born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, HI. While some sources contemporaneously reported the birth occurred at Queens Hospital, others said his birthplace was the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children, then known as Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital.
Six months into the investigation, Zullo reported in an initial press conference that he and his fellow team members were unable to clear the image as derived from a real, paper document. Further, Zullo declared the image a “computer-generated forgery” created “with the intent to deceive.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
You have not ridiculed me and I appreciate that. But you are the exception.
The HDOH official responses are supposed to be certified so that these are claims made under penalty of perjury. It’s like putting themselves under oath.
The statute requires the department to basically put itself under oath, which is why their documents are to be accepted in other states.
The only allowable reason for them to fail to state, under oath, that Obama was born in Hawaii is if they have no prima facia evidence on which to base a claim that he was. A valid BC is prima facia evidence; if they had one for Obama they are required to swear under oath that he was born there.
What the HDOH basically did was to refuse to take an oath in a court of law - while slapping on a non-legal “seal” to make it look like they DID swear on penalty of perjury that Obama was born there.
If they had the discretion to just ignore some requests for certified verification their refusal would just mean that they haven’t certified that they have a BC for him. But they don’t have that discretion legally. The only lawful reason to refuse to certify a letter of verification to a qualified requestor is if they CAN’T because they have no prima facia evidence to substantiate a verification. The failure to certify a verification is confirmation that they have no prima facia evidence that Obama was born there.
There you are.
Loretta not available.
Exactly. And the same Deep State that has every politician by the short-hairs went to unbelievable lengths to make sure she was unavailable, right after Larry Klayman informed all the legal and political players that Fuddy had confirmed there is no valid BC for Obama.
That beast is what we have to defeat. It’s doing the same kind of lawless crap in plain sight of everyone right now. That is the enemy we face.
OK, what was the capacity of the person/entity who made the request? Were they a qualified requestor? Where can I see the letters you refer to? They must be out there somewhere, right? Here if you request a copy and are not a qualified requestor you can receive an informational certified copy. What I’m trying to find out from you is who was the qualified requestor, and what was their relationship to Obama that made them a qualified requestor?
AZ SOS Ken Bennett
KS SOS Kris Kobach
The Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee
None of them received responses saying they were not qualified to receive what they requested. Bennett and Kobach said they needed the verification in order to place Obama on the ballot. Officials who need a verification in order to carry out their duties are eligible to receive certified letters of verification.
MDEC wanted it for a court case.
Ideally, the public should be able to know if somebody has a valid HI BC just by finding their name on the birth index list. But the HDOH was found to have names in their birth index list of 2 people who are known to NOT have valid BC’s under those names. (2 boys who were adopted and had their original BC’s voided and put under seal, yet their original birth names were in the birth index list.) So a name being on the birth index list means nothing.
And even the database can’t be trusted; at one point Virginia Sunahara’s birth certificate was not in the database when I requested a non-certified abbreviated birth certificate (as is allowable under HDOh rules) - but then later it was back in the database. Somebody screwed with the database itself at least twice - once to take her name out and once to put it back in.
Dennis Montgomery says he used the CIA’s supercomputer “The Hammer” to breach the HDOH database so that John Brennan and James Clapper could do whatever they wanted with it.
The HDOH has a whole long, sordid history of illegalities to pretend that they have a valid BC for Obama, but when finally required to respond under oath, they revealed their non-sworn records/claims were all lies. That’s why the lack of certification is legal critical.
OK so I went to Hawaii Statues and read Section 338-14.3, which governs Letters of Verification issued in lieu of certified copies of birth/death/marriage certificates. I can see no requirement that the Letter of Verification be certified. The same requirements for the requestor apply.
I appreciate you looking it up. It can be found at https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0014_0003.htm
Please note this part:
“(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.”
Also, this is required to be done in accordance with HRS 338-18, which says, “(f) The department of health shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is...”
The verification is in lieu of a certified copy of the certificate.
In the USA, one state does not have to recognize the documents of another unless it is properly certified, according to the fleshing out of the US Constitution’s “Full Faith and Credit Clause”.
Basically a document that isn’t certified can’t be used in another state to verify anything. If a letter of verification is to be “certification” of anything, it has to be certified.
According to Section 338-18 Hawaii Statutes they could receive a Letter of Verification in their official capacities. But the Letter of Verification verifies the existence of the birth certificate. So wouldn’t the issuance of a Letter of Verification confirm that there is a birth certificate? Verification may be written, electronic or other form approved by the director of health. Where is the requirement that it be certified? Where can I see this verification?
Also, per the Hawaii State Dept of Health there is no birth index list available to the public. Where did someone find a birth index list with the discrepancy for the two boys you refer to? What database did you use to look up Virginia Sunahara? I can find no such thing as a non/certified abbreviated birth certificate with a google search.
Yes I understand what you wrote about Section 338. I think our replies are getting crossed. But I don’t understand your reference to the full faith and credit clause. Where is the requirement that a document issued by a state must be certified by that state in order to be recognized by another state? I don’t see a certification on my driver license. I don’t see any requirement that a document from one state to be relied on by another state must be certified. Aside from financial implications of the full faith and credit clause, I find it applies to acts of legislation and judicial proceedings.
The "applicable law" is subject to interpretation,
By courts. It is not subject to revision or replacement by dingbats on the internet.
The birth index list is REQUIRED to be public. See Administrative Rules 8b, 2.2 at https://health.hawaii.gov/opppd/files/2015/06/11-117.pdf
Where does the State of HI now claim that they don’t let anybody see the birth index? Shortly before Obama’s long-form forgery, I think it was HI Deputy AG David Wisch who claimed in an article posted by Michael Isikof that all the proof anybody needs about Obama is in the birth index list at the HDOH office. I’ve got scads of requests I made where the HDOH gave copies from the vital records lists, and others have also gone and taken photos from the lists that were publicly available. That’s amazing if they’re even getting rid of that, against their rules. Trying to clean up the history, I guess. That ought to tell everybody anything they need to know.
According to Full Faith and Credit, one state’s documents only need to be accepted by another if they are properly certified. That’s why the HDOh rules allow anybody to get a NON-CERTIFIED short-form BC for anybody else; it could only be used for anything if it was actually certified. And that’s why letters of verification require the same credentials for the requestor as for certified copies: because both are certified so that they can be submitted in any state and be recognized as CERTIFYING/VERIFYING something.
Without requiring certification, anybody could type up a letter about anything and commit fraud anywhere.
In reality, dingbats on the internet are probably more knowledgeable and more rational than the dingbats on the benches.
*I* certainly know more about the history of how "Natural Born Citizen" became distorted from what it originally meant.
Most of it was done by William Rawle and his anti-slavery crusade.
I accidentally sent Freepmail to you that I meant to post here. Sorry about that.
I’m putting it here on the board so anybody can see it:
Full Faith and Credit Clause says, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Congress prescribed “the manner in which they shall be proved” in 28 U.S.C. § 1738, which can be found at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1738 That only deals with legislative and court records but the principle is that there needs to be a way of authenticating records.
Driver’s licenses issued by different states have different authentication/verification features. You can read more about that at https://ftxidentity.com/blog/how-to-spot-a-fake-id/ . It doesn’t involve seals but does involve holograms, bar codes, etc.
At https://www.usbirthcertificates.com/articles/how-to-determine-birth-certificate-official it says “or official purposes, you will always need to obtain a certified copy of your birth certificate from the department of health or your vital records office where the birth was recorded. “ and “ne of the main things that will help you determine if your certified birth certificate is official is a government seal. Look for the seal and if you can’t find one it means you have an informational copy only...Depending on the state where you were born, the seal might be raised or embossed, multicolored, or impressed into the paper. Additionally, besides the seal look out for the signature of the state, county or city registrar on it. .”
I doubt that there is any state in the US that will allow an uncertified statement of birth facts to be effective for official purposes. There’s just no way to authenticate that the document even means anything.
And putting somebody on the state ballot is an official purpose. Submitting a document into court is an official purpose.
Something non-certified is garbage, and you can’t issue a certification without certifying it. Certifying it is the pre-requisite for it to be a “certification” In Administrative Rules Chapter 8b, 2.4b the form of “certification” is the certifying statement, signature, and raised seal. In that document that is what meant by “certification”.
Your attachment clearly states in Section 2.1(A) that access to vital records are not available for or open to public inspection. I asked you where you reviewed the Virginia Sunuhara information but you haven’t answered that question. I cannot find anything regarding a birth index list in Hawaii, as I believe I stated earlier. And as far as the full faith and credit clause requiring certified copies of state documents, I can find nothing regarding this requirement. Again, my driver license does not have a certification. Am I not able to drive legally outside the State of California? Again, where is this requirement?
This is why the issue of Obama’s birth certificate gets nowhere for me (which really doesn’t matter in the whole scheme of things, I know). We’ve gone round and round and you have only answered one question, which was who requested the Letters of Verification. The rest has just been things you’ve heard somewhere, or statements you try to present as fact but cannot substantiate, like a document issued by a state needing to be certified, or characteristics of things that may or may not even exist, like the three Letters of Verification. This just looks like a bunch of smoke and mirrors to me.
That’s irrelevant. Of course they don’t put the certificates on public display. Nobody said they did.
What I directed you to was the part on lists of vital events, which are required to be made public.Section 2.2. When you look at that you can begin to see how brazen the HDOH is to claim there aren’t lists publicly available. (Again, where did you see them say that?)
I viewed the Sunahara information through UIPA (HI’s version of FOIA) requests. That’s also where I viewed the birth index. There are also images online, including at my blog, which is where I have a lot of other information also. https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com It’s hard to find stuff there in its current state which is why I have done you the favor of discussing here.
As I pointed out (and gave you info from experts about) your driver’s license has OTHER methods of authentication such as watermarks and bar codes. Whether that is in any law or not, it is a fact of life that if you don’t have a license with those features you won’t be able to drive anywhere, if you get caught. It’s also a fact of life that if you present a non-certified piece of paper claiming birth facts you will get laughed out of existence if you try to use it for official purposes.
The HDOH - and lots of other DOH offices - KNOW THIS and that is why they make provisions for only qualified people to get actually CERTIFIED records. A verification is a certification that is only available to people who are also qualified to receive a certified copy of the vital record, and a letter of verification is to be considered a certification The rules say that the form of “certification” is the certifying statement, signature, and raised seal.
I have more than answered your questions.
You can see the KS verification at https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/kansas-verification.pdf. The seal is not visible there but I contacted their office and they said it has a seal like the one on the AZ one.
The AZ one is at https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/bennett-request-and-response.pdf . I had a colleague go to the AZ SOS’s office and take a photo of that seal next to a ruler where it is seen that the seal is 2 1/4” in diameter - one of the defining features showing this is the Director’s seal.
The MDEC one is at https://www.scribd.com/doc/96200621/2012-06-06-MDEC-Motion-to-Supplement-Response-to-Motion-for-Sanctions-S-D-Miss . That one actually shows the seal clearly. You can see, for instance, the star between the upper and lower banks of words around the perimeter - another defining feature which shows us this is the DIRECTOR’s seal and requires the Director’s signature. (See 11-1-2 at https://health.hawaii.gov/opppd/files/2013/06/prac_proc.pdf especially where it says:
“At the curve on each side portion
shall be a star. “
and
“(b) The official seal of the department of
health shall be embossed near the signature of the
director of health to verify commissions of
appointment of deputy directors and notaries public,
certificates, and other formal official documents on
which the official seal has been customarily used or
is appropriate to be used, as the director of health
may determine on a case-by-case basis.”
The verifications are real. The seals used are really the Director’s, the Director’s signature is really required in order to certify, and Loretta Fuddy’s signature is nowhere on the document.
I have documented what I said and given sources to explain what should be obvious to everybody even without further elaboration.
You, on the other hand, have not answered why you think the HDOH 3 times sent letters of verification that pretended to be certified but actually weren’t. Apparently THE HDOH thought it needed to be certified. They made it LOOK LIKE it was certified for some reason. A funny thing to do if not necessary as you seem to claim.
But it wasn’t. That particular seal has to have the Director’s signature next to it in order to certify/verify a document.
And you won’t tell me why you think they did that.
Three times.
It doesn’t matter if you think it’s smoke and mirrors. It’s not. The evidence is right here for all to see. And your inability to see that says more about you than about the issue itself.
In reality, dingbats on the internet are probably more knowledgeable and more rational than the dingbats on the benches.
So say the dingbats on the internet. Fortunately, the courts ignore their mutterings.
First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee, 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502, paragraph 40, footnotes omitted:
“Simply put, subjective good faith no longer provides the safe harbor it once did.” “There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11.”
Thank you providing the information I requested multiple times. As I pointed out below I could find no requirement that the Letter of Verification contain a certification. I don’t even remember what the problems with the letters weee. That they don’t have a certification?
I don’t think I said the letters pretended to be certified when they weren’t. I asked where I could see them.
What is "fortunate" about that sh*thead's presidency? What good thing did he do for this nation? How was the public interest served?
Sounds like the dingbats win one over the arrogant idiot courts.
You've got me in tiers/tears!
However, when on what could only have been a single-pass optical scan, some fields get a black-and-white copy treatment, but other fields get a greyscale copy treatment, you can be darned sure someone's been lying and that it really wasn't a single-pass scan!
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.