Eligibility--More than Just a Computer Image, Stupid!

I suppose it's possible that in the past the other islands issued their own certs, but Honolulu has never had more than one centralized state office. The "changes" you refer to are changes made by the state in its forms through the years, not by "the whim of local offices."

Sure, but I was replying to a response from curiosity, not trying to state fact. (S)he made the claim that there were no standards between "some offices" in post 199, and I was playing back that line of reasoning to rebut the claim.

-PJ

Where is the evidence of that?

That's precisely the point: there is no evidence that any reporter since August has asked to see a hard copy and was denied. Do you really think a reporter who asked and was denied would fail to mention that?

Where is that reporter who went to "Factcheck".org HQ to see Obama's COLB? Does "Factcheck" still have Obama's COLB in their possession?

Factcheck did not take it into its possession. Factcheck personnel (who are based in Philadelphia) traveled to Chicago to personally inspect the physical copy. They did not take it back with them.

As far as I know, no one else bothered to make the trip to Chicago, or even asked the campaign if they would mind showing it to them.

Okay, so it's possible the single state office that issues them changed the form at some point. I don't see why you think it's such a big deal.

Reporters are not going to go through the formality of requesting Obama's COLB or his birth certificate when he will not show it in court without being ordered.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Factcheck people asked to see it and were allowed. Knowing that, why shouln't a curious WSJ or IBD reporter ask to see it if he were interested? It costs him nothing, and at the very least, he'd have an instant story if denied.

As to the court, why should he send a copy to the court unless the court asks for it? It's much easier to argue that a case needs to be dismissed due to lack of standing.

Let me ask you this: if you personally inspected a hard copy of the COLB, would it be enough to convince you he's a natural born citizen?

I suspect your answer is "no," and that is precisely why he hasn't done more beyond what he's already done to satisfy people like you.

That's precisely the point: there is no evidence that any reporter since August has asked to see a hard copy and was denied.

I answered that question in post 220.

Do you really think a reporter who asked and was denied would fail to mention that?

They haven't asked because they think they know the answer, which would be NO. See post 220.

Factcheck did not take it into its possession. Factcheck personnel (who are based in Philadelphia) traveled to Chicago to personally inspect the physical copy. They did not take it back with them.

Obama should have left it with them and order 100s more for every news organization on the planet, and authorized Hawaii to send his COLBs directly to all requesters.

See post 212 and below:

" The nature of the question stays the same. Has any reporter seen the Obama COLB in person before or after "FactCheck".org posted it online no matter where the dubious COLB is located? And no, DailyKommie.com (DailyKOS) doesn't count.

Answer: no reporter has seen it in person. "

I never said it was a big deal. If you reread my post 198, I said it could simply be a change in the form that was not documented as a wholesale revision.

However, I do think it is a big deal if a state has a lax procedure for securing its official documents, including layouts, formats, etc. They need a better change control process if new terminology can make its way to a form without being defined somewhere for reference, otherwise, what are the recipients to make of it? How is a registrar in another state (or someone utilizing the document as evidence supposed to interpret the same form with different wordings, without a reference to guide them?

-PJ

None of that was my point, which was: why Berg, (or Taitz or Keyes) never requested that they be allowed to examine the document photographed by FactCheck?

In December, Keyes included a statement from a document expert that "any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document." So, since both Keyes and Berg maintain that the "image" of the document is counterfeit/manipulated/edited why didn't they settle at least that aspect of the case by asking Obama to allow a document expert to examine the document itself, in person?

If Obama had refused, that certainly would have created negative headlines for him, wouldn't it?

All along, it seems to me, there's been two issues here: the authenticity of the COLB image posted, and a request to produce the original Birth Certificate. Why not settle the first possibility, since, if the image was counterfeit, so would be the document that FactCheck photographed.

They need a better change control process if new terminology can make its way to a form without being defined somewhere for reference, otherwise, what are the recipients to make of it? How is a registrar in another state (or someone utilizing the document as evidence supposed to interpret the same form with different wordings, without a reference to guide them?

There's a name for what you're doing: it's called making a mountain out of a molehill.

To any reasonable person, the interpretation of "date accepted" and "date filed" is perfectly obvious and the difference without subtance.

I seriously doubt anyone outside the birther movement cares about the discrepancy.

There's a name for what you're doing: it's called making a mountain out of a molehill.

Actually, what it is is spinning you around in this debate. This whole thing is about what the COLB looks like, what embossing stamp was used in nwhat year, what hatchmark on the borders were used in what year, what the fonts look like when scanned vs. computer generated, etc. Hawaii varied these things over the years. The question was whether the document was a mix-and-match of things that were anachronistic for the period they claimed to be from.

I don't know the answers, I'm just repeating the questions. That's why the difference is important. In what year did Hawaii make the switch? What embossing stamp did they use that year? What did the border weave look like that year? Are they consistent? That's the question the "birther movement" was asking when they didn't have access to the physical document. So now only one organization (not a news or journalism org, but a "check the checkers" org) got access to it and took some photos. And that's supposed to settle it for everyone else?

-PJ

Reporters are not going to go through the formality of requesting Obama's COLB or his birth certificate when he will not show it in court without being ordered.

"Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises."

No, it does follow - it's the logical inference.

Obama has reported that everything on his COLB is truthful and correct where he has put online at his official website "Fight The Smears". Therefore, his stonewalling for not giving out his COLB paper copy to the news media or anyone else, one can logically conclude he is not telling the truth and the "Factcheck" Obama COLB is indeed a forgery. All other excuses for not doing so are lame at best.

That's the question the "birther movement" was asking when they didn't have access to the physical document. So now only one organization (not a news or journalism org, but a "check the checkers" org) got access to it and took some photos. And that's supposed to settle it for everyone else?

But why didn't any of the attorneys filing suit ask to examine the physical document? If Obama had denied access, it certainly would have caused at least an internet storm.

Therefore, his stonewalling for not giving out his COLB paper copy to the news media or anyone else,one can logically conclude he is not telling the truth and the "Factcheck" Obama COLB is indeed a forgery.

Again, you would have a point if someone since August 2008 requested it and was denied. However, that has not happened.

But why didn't any of the attorneys filing suit ask to examine the physical document?

The best I can say is that their cases weren't based on the authenticity of the COLB. They were arguing either dual citizenship, or lack of oversight of credentials, or failure to prove qualifications. Autheniticity of the COLB may have been in the original Berg case, but I think was amended at some point.

Since none of the cases moved past the Standing test, Discovery never happened. Examining the physical document would be a part of the Discovery process.

But I'm not a lawyer, I only watch them on FR.

-PJ

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.