A letter has appeared on Srcibd (pronounced “scribbed”) that purports to be by a Mr. Douglas Vogt, president of Archive Index Systems, a wholesale dealer of scanning hardware and software. He claims that he is an expert in scanning hardware and software. His credentials, however, lead the reader to the conclusion that his major claim to expertise is as just a salesman of these products. The letter opens:
I have irrefutably proven that the Certificate of Live Birth that President Obama presented to the world on April 27, 2011 is a fraudulently created document put together using the Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator programs and the creation of this forgery of a public document constitutes a class B felony in Hawaii and multiple violations under U.S. Code section Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47,Sec.1028, and therefore an impeachable offense. When this comes to the public’s attention, it will be the greatest scandal in the country’s history–”nothing comes even close. This will surpass the all previous scandals including the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration.
It becomes immediately obvious that this letter is way more than expert opinion on a document, and that the writer is ready to make assertions far beyond the evidence, and claim expertise in whatever he find convenient (e.g. Hawaiian law). And indeed the first sentence of his “technical analysis” proves beyond a doubt that he’s a liar. So given that the guy is a liar, there’s no reason to read further.
What President Obama presented is not the hospital birth certificate. The birth certificate would have the imprint of the baby’s footprint, weight, length and other information such as the religion.
[Since this article was written (May 21), the document at Scribd has been replaced with a later version (May 22) that alters the preceding quotation.]
What Vogt does here is to posit some kind of certificate created by the hospital and not filed with the state. I call him a liar because he made up the information without ever claiming to have seen such a certificate. Have you? While there might be some such thing with a footprint on it (mine doesn’t have one), religion makes no sense. Update 11/19/2013: There is now some evidence that Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital did issue a souvenir booklet that did include the child’s footprints, but not religion.
He then goes into some bull about states having to put their documents in imaging systems, which I know is certainly not the case in all states, and testimony from Hawaii clearly states that the long form birth certificate was reproduced from a bound volume, not an electronic imaging system or from microfilm. That error alone invalidates his argument.
I was going to write more, but this piece of crap doesn’t deserve my time. Basically Mr. Vogt exhibits throughout his analysis that he doesn’t know anything about PDF creation software.
News Release: Legal proof that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. by ObamaRelease YourRecords
I have a BS from the University of Hawai, therefore I am an expert in detecting BS, I can state with certainty that Douglas Vogt is full of BS. Push that paypal.
Vogt may want to present himself as a software expert, but he’s well-established as a pseudoscientist, particularly Biblical pseudoscience:
http://home.comcast.net/~diehold/
http://www.vectorpub.com/Reality_Revealed.html
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20001007&slug=4046570
I am very curious as to why the State of Hawaii is now issuing fraudulent certificates. Isn’t that against the law. Is that how powerful Obama has become, that he gets Hawaii to break the law. Why is Hawaii breaking the law or is it that birthers are breaking their brains. The belief system of Birferstan is really weird. Any Time Now! [FIFY. Doc.]
Those details were missing on Trump’s Hospital Certificate. There is, of course, the, well duh, to the statement that Obama did not present a hospital birth certificate.
I am still confused as to what birth certificate, anywhere (at least in the US), would show religion. Maybe the birthers could provide an example.
So why wasn’t he raptured into heaven this morning?
In general, when a witness statement goes into advocacy about legal conclusions, the statement becomes pretty much useless. Someone who goes beyond the facts about which he is aware to argue for legal conclusions is clearly biased. When the person is attempting to represent layperson opinion as expert opinion, he is not only offering useless opinion, but he also undermines his own credibility through misleading conduct.
In short, this document would be perfectly useless for the purpose of any legal proceeding. However, birthers will no doubt expect to be able to use it in their baseless ballot challenges in 2012.
The “long form is a fake produced in Photoshop” meme does not make much sense.
The Hawaii Department of Health has publicly and independently confirmed that it has issued Obama’s long-form certificate and that the White House image is the document that they released to him.
If the document was produced in Photoshop by the White House and is not a scan of a document released by the State of Hawaii, why is the state government publicly confirming that it released the document? If the birthers want to argue that Hawaii is part of the conspiracy, then one must ask why Hawaii would not have produced a fake document rather than publicly confirming a scan of a document that they did not release?
I suppose someone who believes in the plausibility of either nefarious act by the State of Hawaii in this instance is someone who desperately wants to believe in a Kenyan birth and will want to hold every conceivable conspiracy to be true.
Interesting….in the same breath he says BC’s need these footies etc, whilst showing the Nordyke BC as an exempler of truth, which has none of said “required items”
As usual he added the title of “expert” just to make his claim seem more legitimate. It is the facts that are presented. Using hockey terminology; Obama has so far has a shut out, with his opponents unable to find their own blue line.
I tried to look up the law that was cited. The Library of Congress site didn’t find a “Federal Minimum Standards for Birth Certificates” but did find the most of the wording that is quoted in another law. In “INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004”, “Subtitle B—Terrorist Travel and Effective Screening” there is a section 7211 which addresses birth certificates. It is codified in Title 5, U.S. Code Section 301. It reads mostly like what Mr. Vogt wrote.
The law requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations on birth certificates within 1 year and after 2 years prohibits federal agencies from accepting birth certificates that don’t meet those published standards. The minimum standards section addresses what needs to be in the regulations when they are issued.
What I found and didn’t find:
– The quoted information about “computerizing their birth and death records” is NOT in the law that I found.
– The law as passed includes requirements that the Secretary
– may not require a single design to which birth certificates issued by all States must conform; and
– shall accommodate the differences between the States in the manner and form in which birth records are stored and birth certificates are produced from such records.
– I have not yet located any regulations on this issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I believe they are out there, but I haven’t identified them.
Mr. Vogt alleges that the “Federal Government wanted the states to computerize their source documents” based upon what he quotes the law to say. But that isn’t what Congress passed. So I’ll question everything else he says.
Since Hawaii stopped issuing long-form certificates when they went paperless in 2001, it is reasonable to conclude that the long-forms were NOT in an electronic imaging system (or else they could easily be produced and the State wouldn’t have a policy of not issuing them). Having visited some projects where vital records were being scanned, I observe that the books were taken apart for scanning. The scanners used a feed mechanism, not the clumsy and time consuming mash the book on the glass plate. If Mr. Vogt truly sells commercial scanning systems, he should know better.
I guess it won’t be long until the birfers throw the Nordyke BC’s under the bus. After all, they’ve had no problem with “It was never about the birth certificate”, so they won’t have a problem with “We never said the Nordyke BC’s were legit” either.
> then one must ask why Hawaii would not have produced a fake document rather than publicly confirming a scan of a document that they did not release
The twisted birfer logic assumes that “da ebil Hawaiian konspeerators” think they can somehow wiggle themselves out of this once the bifer Bizarro World takes over the real world and they’re put on trial. I’ve read arguments that effectively say “they will just claim they never confirmed it as real and it was all just a mistake”.
thanks for addressing this.
> So given that the guy is a liar, there’s no reason to read
almost everyone lies occasionally deliberately)
other things could still be useful to read
Dear Kevin, You called me a liar without even reading my report and then told your readers that I was “just a salesman.” I have 11 years in the typesetting business and 18 years selling scanners, designing document imaging software and installing such systems in city and county offices here in the Northwest. All the scanner manufacturers and distributors know be very well. I was consulted by the Justice Department regarding the Kodak purchase of Bell & Howell two years ago. Your only experience seem to be working as a bureaucrat in vital records for the State of South Carolina so you should know that what Obama presented to the public was only a PDF of a Certificate of Live Birth and not a birth certificate. There was no paper copy with a seal presented to the US Public therefore none to examine by anyone! My expanded 22-page report is downloadable here: http://www.vectorpub.com/Obamas_Certificate_Forgery.html. I bet you cannot prove me wrong that the Obama COLB is a forgery. You also owe me an apology for unfairly calling me a liar and defaming my character and good name.
he presented the real copy with the seal to the press
before they made the pdf at the WhiteHouse webpage
there must be another thread here…
There is a (low resolution) photo of that copy from
Savannah Guthrie who also reported she did touch the seal
http://lockerz.com/s/96540721
If I called you “just a salesman” inaccurately and you called me a “bureaucrat”, then we can call it even.
Your comment “There was no paper copy with a seal presented to the US Public therefore none to examine by anyone!” is false because White House correspondent Savannah Guthrie examined the original and said that the felt the raised seal, and she took a photo of it. http://lockerz.com/s/96540721
I will take a look at your new and improved forgery claim and respond to the whole thing in an article. However, the State of Hawaii backs the document, so you cannot be anything other than a crank, no matter what your experience.
> I bet you cannot prove me wrong that the Obama COLB is a forgery.
Why don’t we start with your bogus “The birth certificate would have the imprint of the baby’s footprint”? If I read one such idiocy (not supported by any credible evidence of course), I know I don’t have to read much further.
Also you’re talking about “the Long Form that the County gets from the hospital” – where do you make such stuff up?
A real expert would not go out of his field of expertise to make blatantly false statements.
Figure 3 shows a straight line where a curved line would have been appropriate. Any child can see “Male” is curved, not straight. Drawing funny lines does not change that.
Same with the “K” in “Kapionali”, figure 4.
Again here I can already stop since your “expertise” is obviously not only bogus, but deliberately misleading.
Or do you think a court would allow testimony by an expert who has been shown to have misrepresented the facts underlying his conclusions?
Your observations as to sequential numbering are based on what credentials exactly? Knowing typesetting and Adobe products?
Your allusions as to the significance of Virginia Sunahara are based on what credentials and what facts exactly?
Knowing typesetting and Adobe products and how to read “The Post and Email”?
You are a pathetic excuse of an expert, nothing else.
Doug, your numbered claims about the document fit into one of two error categories:
1. Claims of electronic artifacts that don’t accord with the provenance of the document. A physical document was created by the officials of the State of Hawaii who swore it was an accurate copy of what was in their files. That physical document was handed to an attorney for Obama on Monday and a PDF was released to the world on Wednesday. The State of Hawaii now links to that PDF as their official word on the subject. Here. Allegations of a forged “male” or the “R” in Barack or grayscale letters or the certification date don’t make sense given this timeline. Such electronic artifacts presumably wouldn’t show up if the White House had made an unchanged copy of the physical document handed to them by Hawaii and to speculate that they forged all this stuff between Monday and Wednesday strains credulity – especially speculating that the Hawaiian officials missed that Obama’s White House changed him from female to male or changed the registration date.
2. Claims which go well beyond your stated expertise as a document imaging expert. Your claims that the Index Number is wrong, for example, relies on your claimed knowledge of Hawaiian numbering protocol, when you claim earlier that you have no way of knowing, for instance, whether an electronic Bates numbering machine was available. Further, it seems to be based entirely on the fact that a child died around the time that Obama was born. In this, it is not just ill-sourced and outside your expertise, but downright offensive! You really should be ashamed of yourself!
> If I called you “just a salesman” inaccurately and you called me a
> “bureaucrat”, then we can call it even.
you also called him a liar and a crank
similar with “Retired Intelligence Officer” in the other thread
OK, I printed the 22 pages.
I can’t see the evidence in Male and Kapiolani either.
Figure 13 and 14 however are very obvious.
8 points to form the irrefutable proof.
If it is really irrefutable then one of the 8 points
must be sufficient. Which ?
One point can be easier checked than 8
Well, if the appellation fits. He lies about Hawaiian law and about foot-prints on birth certificates. He goes well beyond his claimed expertise with claims about the index numbering system in place in 1961, Hawaiian law, etc.
Please explain Figures 13 and 14 with respect to what happened with the documents in REALITY
1. The Department of Health made a physical copy of what was in their files. This happened on or before April 25.
2. The Director of the Department of Health states in a signed letter that she watched the copying of the files and what came out of the copier matched what went into the copier (see page 4). This was on April 25.
3. A physical copy of the form was handed to Obama’s attorney, on or after April 25.
4. A PDF was shown to the world on April 27.
5. The Hawaiian Department of Health linked to the PDF given out by the White House.
Did the form given to Obama’s attorney on Monday not have the “R” in his name?
Did the form given to Obama’s attorney on Monday not have the correct index number?
Why?
And, if not, how did the Hawaiian officials miss this on Monday? How did they miss this when they linked to the new copy on Wednesday?
How would these artifacts appear on the physical copy handed to the attorney on Monday?
Doug appears to contend that the whole story of the provenance of this document is faked – that there was no physical copy made on Monday. Do you, like him, contend that everyone involved is lying? He discusses this on Page 9 (of the revised doc, Page 11 of the 22 page original). What evidence do you find there supporting this claim? I find none.
RIO unquestionably lied repeatedly and extensively. In most sentences he wrote the only true words were “the” and “and”, In many cases not even those. He never even provided the slightest evidence that his screen name was true. If his screen name were “Joe” or “Sam” it wouldn’t matter, but when his screen name attempts to convey authority it matters.
of course, the real question is, why would Obama and his stuff be so stupid
to release such an easily identifiable forgery ?
Whatever.
looks like the original copy http://lockerz.com/s/96540721 was not well readable
and they tried to enhance the readability with some software.
But they should really have explained this and also given the original copy
on the WH-webpage to avoid this confusion.
whynot
The real, real question is how a forgery makes sense given the facts we know about the document.
Enhancing readability is not the same as forgery. Query why your “experts” find forgery when enhancing readability explains the same artifacts?
maybe because the Obama-people enjoy to deliberately trick birthers
into believing such things so they can be ridiculed later ?
Do you have any proof of that? I’m going to go ahead and just call you a liar.
Again, enhancing readability is not the same as forgery. Are your “experts” unable to tell the difference?
not forgery (if true)
not “my” experts
Show me how your “experts” would distinguish forgery from enhanced readability?
What is the provenance of the President’s certified long form copy of his birth certificate?
It’s a simple question that you seem incapable of answering.
the first upper horizontal bar of the K in Kapiolani clearly drops down
as compared to the 2nd
the first lower horizontal bar of the M in Male clearly drops down
as compared to the 2nd
provenance is Hawaii
And what does that mean?
Provenance tracks each step of the chain of custody. Please explain how forgery makes sense based on what we know of the provenance of the document in question?
And how does this accord with a physical document on Monday, a PDF on Wednesday, a link to that document on or after Wednesday from the Hawaiian DOH?
And yet it was certified by the state of Hawaii, and is therefore legal despite your conjecture and speculations.
are you posing questions that you know the answers for ?
Doug you still can’t even prove Obama’s certificate is a forgery. The State of Hawaii’s Department of Health said they issued Obama his document. Where in your experience do you have any kind of forensic document analysis? It reminds me of this wilcox kid who claimed he was an expert because he did a lot of scanning for his company.
RIO is a liar and a crank shown by his continual misstatements.
FOX News: We Really Work At This! Oh, For Goodness Sake
1 hour ago by OFGS
In today’s dispatches, multidimensional reality expert Douglas Vogt repurposes old tired COLB complaints and aims them at the long form. Tribble mobility scooter Donald Trump gets thanked….but not in a way he might like. …
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/ – More results from Oh, For Goodness Sake
———————————————————————-
Turncoat Obama drkatesview4 days ago by drkate
by Douglas Vogt. Re: Legal proof that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. http://www.vectorpub.com/Obamas_certificate_of_birth_May-22-2011_Expanded_News%20Realease.pdf
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/ – More results from drkatesview
—————————————————————
Is This THE Conclusive Evidence of Obama’s Birth Certificate …4 days ago by bobbi85710
Updated and revised Full 22 page report on the forgery of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth-News Release written by Douglas Vogt; Three web site pages containing news stories from WorldNetDaily on the Obama’s Certificate found by other …
https://bobbi85710.wordpress.com/tag/department/page/2/
———————————————————–
Give Us Liberty: MUST CHECK THIS OUT!….OBAMA MUST BE …4 days ago by giveusliberty1776
News Release – Expanded Analysis of President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth | by Douglas Vogt. http://www.vectorpub.com/Obamas_certificate_of_birth_May-22-2011_Expanded_News%20Realease.pdf …
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/
—————————————————————————————
Citizen Contacts Florida General Counsel about Obama Birth …4 days ago
WHO AT THE FBI WILL INVESTIGATE THE MULTIPLE CLAIMS OF FORGERY? May 25, 2011. Was this image created on a computer or is it an actual copy of the document which supposedly is on file at the Hawaii Department of Health? Danial E. Nordby …
http://usurpador.blogcindario.com/ – References
——————————————————————————————————-
News Release – Expanded Analysis of President Obama’s Certificate …4 days ago by cfkerchner
News Release – Expanded Analysis of President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth | by Douglas Vogt. http://www.vectorpub.com/Obamas_certificate_of_birth_May-22-2011_Expanded_News%20Realease.pdf …
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/ – More results from CDR Kerchner’s Blog
——————————————————————————————————————-
Obama ‘Hoisted on his own Petard!’| The Post & Email5 days ago by Sharon Rondeau
by Douglas Vogt. Re: Legal proof that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. http://www.vectorpub.com/Obamas_certificate_of_birth_May-22-2011_Expanded_News%20Realease.pdf …
http://www.thepostemail.com/
——————————————————————————
President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth – “…Is a fraudulently …6 days ago by Ed
by Douglas Vogt President of Archive Index Systems, Inc. A disappointed Natural Born U.S. Citizen. Dear Sir/Madam, I have irrefutably proven that the.
http://philosophers-stone.co.uk/wordpress/
—————————————————————————————–
What can you do to remove our “squatter in chief”. Evidence of …23 May 2011 by dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Exhibits provided in Hornbeck v Salazar, particularly sworn affidavit of typographic and scanning machines expert, Mr. Douglas Vogt, provide irrefutable proof that Mr. Obama indeed posted on the official site White House.gov a forgery …
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/ – More results from Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire
1. Who are you responding to?
2. Lawyers never ask questions they don’t know the answers to. I have asked you to explain the artifacts you view as evidence of forgery in light of the provenance we know. I know that I cannot fit forgery into the facts we know. I want to know how you explain it.
3. Do you know what Socratic dialogue is?
Assuming that’s even true, please explain why that indicates forgery. Remember the concept of controls in scientific experiments; a fact in isolation means nothing.
By the way are you working on a detailed proposal for a forensic examination as we discussed yesterday? Are you planning how to validate methodology? I can’t stress enough that sinply looking at something is meaningless. You have to prove that if I handed you a set containing both forged and genuine documents that you could reliably distiinguish between them.
That would be a critical test for Mr Vogt as well, if he is still here,
For Mr. Vogt, as well as any other golf-course designers who wish to opine on the validity of Obama’s birth certificate, may I suggest the ASTM’s Forensic Science Standards for Questioned Documents and, in particular, the Standard Guide for Minimum Training Requirements for Forensic Document Examiners. You can also find information at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Questioned Documents Section, American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (ASQDE), and the Board of Forensic Document Examiners.
That sounds a lot like those silly ghost chasing pseudo-scientists who say “Look! Unusual electromagnetic activity! That means ghosts!”
In this case it’s more like…. “Look!Unusual electromagnetic activity all along the entire circumference of this particle accelerator!That means ghosts!”
They find conspiracies in every mundane and expected happenstance.
The vertical registration of the typed text is terrible on the long form.
I have not seen anything that leads me to think that any enhancement operations were done. I did initially take that position based on the existence of the layers and what somebody said and ignorance of how PDF software works. However, after I scanned some PDF’s myself and did a little reading, I found that no manual enhancement process is indicated by the long form PDF. Indeed looking at the actual layers, no human would have done something that crazy in the detail, like splitting a signature in the middle into two layers, or picking one letter out of the middle of a word to go in a separate layer.
[Update: Since the publication of this article and these comments, it was shown that the Obama long form PDF underwent an automated optimization process called Mixed Raster Content compression, almost certainly by a Xerox WorkCentre machine at the White House that scanned the document. Doc.]
And it took me 4 hours to say that. 🙁
drop down was to invalidate Vogt’s 1st point
the “enhancement” seems to done by the software, I don’t know
photoshop, but in Irfanview there is a “sharpen” – option
I do see the X in Guthrie’s pic. (Vogt-7,Fig.24)
maybe a grain of salt on the Hawaii rubber stamp
The only honest thing you’ve said here so far.
Hmmm….
You know if the document hadn’t actually been publicly certified by the state of Hawaii, that might almost be of some concern, on some planet or another.
I found a better picture here:
http://cbsla.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/113207051-e1303920915143.jpg
I compared the M from “Male” with the M from “Maternity” in that picture
and the M from Male was clearly a bit rotated, showing the “drop down”
(Vogt -1.) Will Vogt comment ? Will Vogt give an update ?
the X in “THE” is still a mystery. Clearly an X, not an H
the 6 letters CT OF TX look darker, more pronounced than the others.
So maybe the stamp was invisible there and they filled in these 6 letters
by hand, making that silly error with the X.
Did Onaka maybe come from Texas or lived/worked in Texas before or
process documents containing “Texas” just before this one ?
TX stands for Texas, AFAIK
and the writing from the stamp is _not_ exactly horizontal.
Clearly rotated clockwise a bit. Not exactly parallel
to the lines in the document nor the border of the pic nor
the date-stamp (not so clear, though, since the date stamp
is short)
where is there supposed to be a seal ? I can’t find it.
I can’t figure it out from Fig.19 (Vogt -6.))
What’s your point?
OK, the seal can be seen in the picture from Savannah Guthrie
You get to the lower point of the circular seal when you mirror
the triangle in field 19a by the lowest horizontal line.
The upper point of the seal is near the 21 in field 21
(I’m not sure about the size)
The clearest paper-anomaly, presumably due to the seal, is at 7o’clock
in the seal-circle.
I cannot see any signs of the seal in the picture at wordpress.com
The seal can be made out on the color PDF with the security paper, It is underneath fields 20 & 21 on the form.
I wrote:
> and the writing from the stamp is _not_ exactly horizontal.
> Clearly rotated clockwise a bit. Not exactly parallel
> to the lines in the document nor the border of the pic nor
> the date-stamp (not so clear, though, since the date stamp
> is short)
I have to withdraw that.
The stamp-writing is rotated wrt. the picture border,
but so are the certificate lines.
So the stamp is indeed pretty much parallel to the
text in the certificate.
How could it happen ? Coincidence ?
How is the stamp applied ?
The date stamp is clearly a hand stamp. My hunch is that the Onaka stamp is as well.
what’s the “color PDF with the security paper” ? link ?
is there an original 1961-seal in fields 7g,9,12,14
if you mean the grayscale (black & white) image, you are looking at a pdf made from a b/w photocopy of the certificate. The traces of the seal got lost in the photocopying process.
The color PDF with the security paper is at whitehouse.gov. If you do a google search for “obama birth certificate” it’s usually one of the first results to show up.
I don’t know what you are talking about. There wouldn’t be a seal on the original. They only put a seal on when they certify the document.
OK. There are some dirty spots,lines
in the right of fields 7g,9,12b,14,12a
which could have been near the border of a circle
But these are also in other fields, so presumably just some color or dirt from pressure with the next page in the book
No, those are marks that were made on the face of the original certificate, which probably correspond to data entry numbers for vital statistics records. That is, someone marked the numerical forms on the certificate, probably in pencil, to enable entry of specific data codes.
So there appears to be a number 2 in 7g, 9 in 9, 7 in 12b, 1 in 14. Similarly, field 2 is marked with the number 1. (presumably it would be marked as 2 for a female child)
OK, thanks. 8 in 12a ?
I know, they have these public computer-readable
death certificates available since 1959 at NCHS.
But not birth certificates
I haven’t mentioned this before, but I submitted a FOIA request to DHS for the NCHS coding book for 1961 for the purpose of documenting the numbers.
I don’t know about “public” but birth records were reported by the states to the NCHS in computer-readable form in 1961. Not all births were reported but rather large samples. Lest anyone get the idea that they might try to get Obama’s NCHS birth data record, NCHS birth data dies not include the infant’s name.
Would you please stop making large numbers of short comments. You are hogging the conversation and making it more difficult for the Recent Comments feature to allow others to follow the conversation.
Also it would be helpful for you use the Quote feature so that people can follow which comments you are replying to, and also please don’t break your lines but rather let them word wrap.
That’s good advice, foreigner; I hope you take to heart. Your comments read like inscrutable telegrams.
You said it much better! A mis-struck backspace ate my point-by-point response to Vogt.
In the unlikely event that the question of whether or not the long form is a forgery ends up in court, what carries more weight, the chain of custody and the state of Hawaii’s backing up the document’s authenticity, or any forensic document analysis that either proves or disproves it’s forgery?
I’m not sure that anything beyond the State of Hawaii’s vouching for it would ever make it into evidence. As an analogy, suppose I buy something from you and you sue me claiming the $100 bill I gave you was counterfeit. The Secret Service analyzes it and says it’s genuine. Since they are the designated authority on US currency, I doubt a judge would even entertain an analysis performed by some other “expert”.
The original copy of the signed and sealed PAPER document has no questions around it, is a legal, binding and self certifying document and there have not been, nor will there be “forensic analysis” of the original copy so the question is moot.
(Emphasis is that the paper that the President has is a COPY of the actual original that resides in Hawai’i)
So in other words, the birthers can talk about this minutia all they want but there’s no getting around the Hawaii DOH’s statements that the LFBC is genuine?
Temper tantrums, whining and crying Birfoon tears does not a legal case make
Correct.
First, I don’t think courts will come anywhere near cases involving presidential eligibility, which is clearly a matter for Congress. Congress of course can make its own rules of evidence.
Assuming this were a case involving an ordinary Joe, say over citizenship, I think the deference given to a state document that the State stands firmly behind would be extremely hard to overcome. The Constitution is pretty clear regarding full faith and credit. Perhaps, if there were a birth certificate from another jusrisdiction that the authorities there stood behind, a court might feel they had to resolve the conflict. It would have to be a lot more than a piece of paper on EBay. It would have to be a piece of paper that the Kenyan (or other government) vouched for officially (and no, vague statements made by Ambassador X or Member of Parliament Y don’t count).