You are full of false assumptions. We’ve had this same conversation before where I spanked you illogical behind.
Plain old lying on the Internet is not crime. Anyone can point to a image online and say anything about it as they like without breaking the law. Now, if Obama used that image everyone calls a Certification of Live Birth in an official capacity as to falsify government documents using it as proof, then he could be prosecuted for wrong doing if it is not genuine. Alas, Obama and his sycophants can lie to their heart’s content without retribution. Obama has never publicly associated himself with that silly image that you think as real. He keeps his distance for a ‘plausible deniability’ excuse and lets his koolaid drinkers promote it as real.
You can take it to the bank Obot that Obama will never show that forgery in a court of law.
Once again, neither you nor I have any idea what evidence has been submitted in defendants’ legal briefs to the Courts that have looked at the eligibility issue.
Just because you call something a forgery doesn’t make it so.
Back in August of 2008, WorldNetDaily, not exactly a pro-Obot website had its own independent forgery experts examine the Obama online COLB and they concluded that it was “most likely” authentic.
From WorldNetDaily:
“A separate WND investigation into Obama’s certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.
(Editor’s Note: WND’s investigation into the certification of live birth did not include inspecting the actual document, but only asking experts to evaluate the online image. Those experts, therefore, could not “prove” the document’s authenticity. The experts told WND merely that many of the forgery claims made against the image were inconclusive or falsified, leaving them no evidence that would cast doubt on the image’s authenticity.)
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
No Obot, the corrupt Obama team posted 2 forgeries and passed them off as the same document. The first one was posted by the DailyKooks at the DailyKos.org on the 12th of June 2008, which was later posted by the Kool-aid drinkers at "Fight the Smears" Obama's official website. The second one was to cover up the deficiencies of the first one, which was posted at "FactCheck".org in the 1st week of August, 08. And Obot, you'll never see either of those two forgeries from the inside of any courtroom submitted as evidence - never. Because the Obama COLB forgery would be subject to verification of his vital records in Hawaii. Obama is not about to let that happen if he can help it.
The “FIGHT THE SMEARS” website was an official sub-division of the “Obama For President” campaign. HE is responsible for it.
The Dumbass Obama would still claim 'plausible deniability' if he thought he could get away with it...and probably even if could not. Obama would say I didn't know what those guys were doing on that campaign website. I had thousands of people working on my campaign and noway I could keep track of what they were all doing. It wouldn't work because no one would believe his lying ass.
Once again, neither you nor I have any idea what evidence has been submitted in defendants’ legal briefs to the Courts that have looked at the eligibility issue.
Where have you been? Their briefs are on public display.
Just because you call something a forgery doesn’t make it so.
But it is in this case.
Back in August of 2008, WorldNetDaily, not exactly a pro-Obot website had its own independent forgery experts examine the Obama online COLB and they concluded that it was “most likely” authentic.
I don't see anywhere that WND believes in those clowns at Factcheck.org in the article you posted. And I see you left off the clowns at 'Factcheck' in your post above. LOL!
A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.
WND doesn't name the person(s) who said it was 'authentic'. Obviously we know now those/that guy(s) was wrong from your August 23rd, 2008 article. And in the same WND article, is most likely referring to 'Techdude' who claimed it was Maya's COLB that was used as a template used for the Obama COLB DailyKook.org forgery, which did not hold up to scrutiny. He's been discredited.
However, a few months later WND ran this story:
Posted: December 01, 2008 10:20 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
It was Polarik's analysis of the Obama COLB and which has stood up to scrutiny despite all the Obots who tried to say otherwise.
This time, WND names this independent expert here in the same article who said,
"Dan Purdy of Forensic Document Examination Services Inc. told WND that the origins of the Internet images aren't known. He raised questions over whether the "original" was a photocopy, the equipment used to create the digital image and the compression processes of the various formats. "
Furthermore in the same December 1st article,
"WND columnist Janet Porter has written extensively about the birth certification issue...
She also noted the issue won't go away, and recommended a visit to ObamaForgery.com to review what's happening.
"These are the facts," she wrote. "The Constitution requires the president to be a natural born citizen. Obama's grandmother said she was there when Barack was born in Kenya. Obama refuses to release his original birth certificate. Instead of a birth certificate, Obama's campaign posted a certification given to those born abroad. Experts have called even that document an 'obvious forgery.'"
"Our Constitution still matters," she said."
-end snip-
So Obot, do you really think World Net Daily really believes Obama's Hawaiian COLB that are posted online are genuine - do you?