I mentioned briefly in a comment a couple of days ago that I had a dream, a really strange one, where I kept finding boxes of cranks and boxes of dirt. It wasn’t obvious why I had this dream, but I think now that it was prophetic of the latest legal move of Orly Taitz in Grinols v. Electoral College.
Not long after being rebuffed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Taitz v Democrat Party of Mississippi, where she attempted to obtain a Writ of Mandamus to require the judge to declare Michael Astrue, former Commissioner of Social Security, in default for failing to respond to a defective service of the complaint, she turns around and files an appeal of Judge England’s refusal to find President Obama in default in Grinols, where the judge had explained in great detail why her service was defective in that case also.
The legal form of the two appellate actions are different, one to force a judge to rule with a writ of mandamus and the other an appeal of a ruling, but the underlying defect is the same: Orly Taitz doesn’t follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules when serving plaintiffs. Repeated legal failures makes one a crank [Note: at the time this written I thought “crank” meant the same as “crackpot”] , and I think that this is what my dream meant, particularly as Orly Taitz once inexplicably said on her blog [link to Taitz web site]: “I used this motion to simply pour dirt on me.”
Note: there is a hearing on a motion to dismiss in this case on the 18th of this month.
Grinols Notice of Appeal and Ex Parte Expedited Motion0001 by orlytaitz1
She filed one of those mandamus thingies in the Grinols case also. It was filed on February 27th. Since Judge England has already denied her motion for a default judgment against Obama, and her motion for reconsideration of that denial, her writ of mandamus is obviously moot now, but the appeals court has not yet put the final nail in the coffin. http://www.scribd.com/doc/127837463/9th-Cir-2013-02-37-Grinols-v-Electoral-College-Emergency-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus
What is the order at the end? Has the Judge actually issued that order?
If I’m not mistaken, there was great contention in the Carter case by Orly Taitz stating she served Obama personally. However, the ultimate resolution of that case was that Carter made Obama be served through the US Attorney Office. Here, Orly HAS SERVED Obama correctly under Federal Law but is insisting he be served through the US Attorney like in Carter. I can see how the appeal court needs to step and correct this legal corrundrum. Will Orly great 1 honest judge on the appeals court. Unlikely.
It is interesting, in denying the motion for judgement, Judge England never explains why even though Orly did serve Obama correctly. My feeling is that Judge England knows that Obama has been served correctly but is refusing to admit it. Clearly Obama effects serve to the letter of the law under the Federal Rule. The problem is Obama is refusing to accept the service and since he also the President, it is impossible to force it upon him.
An important difference here is that the earlier case was a post-inauguration lawsuit whereas this one is a pre-inauguration lawsuit. In neither case did Taitz serve the President in his personal capacity according to the rules.
Taitz cannot say both that it was OK for her to serve the President through the US Attorney and that the the US Attorney cannot represent him. They are mutually-exclusive positions. (This goes to my “have your cake and eat it too” comment about Orly Law).
It is a proposed order, which has not, nor ever will be issued.
Yes he did, in detail.
Under Federal Law 4e Orly Taitz has PROPERLY served Obama:
(b) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there;
Orly had process servers go to Obama’s usual place of abode with is the White House (Remember Obama is also the President, so this is his dwelling place.) and serve Obama.
There are 3 problems however:
1. The Secret Service, who would be considered of suitable age and who do recide at the White House REFUSED to accept Service. Orly can’t FORCE the service upon these individuals.
2. The Secret Service demanded Obama be served through the US Attorny’s office which was done.
3. The Carter Case makes precident that Obama can be served through the US Attorney’s office.
Judge England is wrong is every way and if you read his decision involving service, Judge Englan really provides nothing that justify his decision.
Quit pretending you don’t understand that “the problem” is that there is no case. The president is eligible to be president. If there was some sort of eligibility issue someone would have already figured out how to fashion a valid legal case (it wouldn’t be that difficult) and actually serve the president.
If Dr. Taitz has served President Obama personally, perhaps she will file a proof of service. And perhaps John wil link to it rather than troll. I observed on a previous claim by Dr. Taitz of service of the lawsuit that an essential element, it seems to me, is to attach the proof of service. Really, John, really, Dr. Taitz, is that too hard?
The other issue in all this is whether a sitting President is required to defend a civil suit. Jones v Clinton suggests not, because while the President was compelled to testify, the plaintiff in that case had allegedly suffered a personal wrong. But in all of these cases, that isn’t so. And of course, as she’s seeking his removal from office, it’s all doomed anyway. Even if she knew what she was doing, read the instructions and followed them.
perhaps john will read and post where he refutes the 6-page decision in which the judge patiently instructs taitz on the service of process ……. something ALL law students learn in civil procedure
john seems to fall back into nostalgic birther behavioural patterns like the “there is no…” meme (aka the “lalala I can’t here you” fallacy).
Just wait until he claims no court ever declared Obama an NBC, or that nobody claims to have known Obama in college.
John, did you not just contradict yourself? You conjecture that Mr. Obama has been served correctly, then state that it is impossible to force service on the President. Which is it? Also, you state that he is the President, but haven’t you wasted years of your life trying (unsuccessfully) to refute the idea that he is REALLY the President?
orly has questions & “a serious concern” which could be answered by a simple reading of hawaii’s “Who is Eligible to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records?”
Letters of Verification
Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS 338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/civil union/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.
she asks:
why in light of evidence of forgery would plaintiffs seek a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate and not examination of the original?
Let’s say 2 out of 3 judges on the panel rule for the plaintiffs (there are 7 judges in this court and we do not know if Roy Moore will be on the panel of 3 who actually hear this case), let’s say the court grants requested relief, which of course is very unlikely. What happens next? I am extremely concerned that the same registrar from the state of HI, who was complicit for 4 years now will certify another copy of the same forgery and this will be used as a big victory by Obama over the birthers. Obama will claim that this is the ultimate proof. Why are attorneys in AL asking for a certified copy instead of the examination of the original?
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=410507
My guess is that Johnson and Klayman, reprehensible though they are, recognize that Alabama has no authority to require Alaska to allow inspection of its vital records.
Orly does serve correctly.
I was in Orange County, talking to Orly Taitz. She said to me, “Want fries with that?”
I filled out a “Customer Service Card,” and complimented her for serving me correctly.
You are mistaken. No surprise there.
In the Barnett/Keyes case, Orly was suing Obama in his official capacity. She fumbled several attempts to serve him, and Judge Carter prevailed upon the U.S. attorneys to accept service and he instructed Orly to serve them.
In the Grinols case, Orly is insisting that she is suing Obama in his personal capacity. The rules are clear – she cannot serve him in his personal capacity through the U.S. Attorney, no matter what some Secret Service agent may have told her process server.
Judge England laid out the rules for serving the President in his individual capacity in language which a ten-year-old child could understand. Orly has ignored the judge’s ruling and instead of doing what he told her she continues to file appeals.
Orly is the worst attorney ever.
The Birth Certificate Verifications produced by Hawaii are too inconstistant to be any value and therefore the original must be produced and examined. Recall, the first discrepancy was with Dr. Fukino when she indicted that their were MULTIPLE (More Than 1) Vital Records on file supporting Obama’s Hawaii birth in her last press statement. The next discrepancy was with Alvin Onaka when verified Bennett’s request (AZ SOS). The problem with this was that Bennett asked if the birth certificate and information was a legal and accurate representation of what was on file. Onaka refused to state that it was and only stated the information matched. Further Onaka verified the the WH BC that Bennett send to him indicating that it matched the original record on file. The problem with this is that Onaka changed the wording when Kansas and Mississippi asked him the very same thing. Onaka again stated the information matched but this indicated the original record was Obama Certificate of Life Birth. So lets conclude:
1. Fukino – “Vital RecordS” exist
2. Onaka to Bennett – Information matches to “Original Record”
3. Onaka to MS – Information matches to “Original Certificate of Live Birth”
4. Onaka to KS – Information matches to “Original Certificate of Live Birth”.
One can see the discrepancys.
“In the Grinols case, Orly is insisting that she is suing Obama in his personal capacity. The rules are clear – she cannot serve him in his personal capacity through the U.S. Attorney, no matter what some Secret Service agent may have told her process server.
Judge England laid out the rules for serving the President in his individual capacity in language which a ten-year-old child could understand. Orly has ignored the judge’s ruling and instead of doing what he told her she continues to file appeals.”
—–
Orly actually followed England’s instructions to the letter. The problem is that Obama REFUSED service and Orly was FORBIDDEN to FORCE service upon Obama on the DEMAND that Obama be served through the Us Attorney’s office which was done.
Rickey: Orly is the worst attorney ever
or the best liar – an attorney playing dumb is not attractive and an affront to our judicial system
as you said “Judge England laid out the rules for serving the President in his individual capacity in language which a ten-year-old child could understand.”
her followers must have the intelligence level of a gnat
Because a certified copy issued by the Hawaii Department of Health is an original document and is admissible as evidence in court.
I don’t understand the failure to serve the parties properly.
Apuzzo was able to serve the President in Purpura v. Obama in New Jersey
Yet in Paige v. Obama in Vermont, Paige couldn’t serve President Obama properly even with Apuzzo helping him.
Speaking of Paige v. Obama has anyone seen the appellant or appellee briefs to the Vermont Supreme Court. Oral arguments are scheduled for then 26th but there doesn’t seem to be much buzz about the case.
See my comments in bold
Sorry, John. You’re wrong. Can you honestly say you believe that the appeals court will agree with Taitz? Come on, be honest.
There is a 30-minute hearing on April 23 and for some reason Justice Robinson has been disqualified.
You are over-estimating them.
What’s the discrepency? Fukino made multiple statements verifying the COLB, Onaka was consistent in every statement.
Are you autistic? It’s a serious question.
chief justice reiber and justice johnson seemed to be “disqualified” on a few cases as are Skoglund & Dooley
http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/MasterDocument/supremecrtcalendar-apr13term.pdf
Sometimes you need a synthesist: someone who can look at the problem from more than one direction, bringing in the best from multiple disciplines. Maybe even multiple parallel universes. A Feynman, an Asimov, or, dare I say… a Taitz.
In this case, the issue may seemingly only touch on the law, but: what if the real answer requires someone who is not only a brilliant, incisive legal mind, but a person who knows about, say, real estate? After all, someone being served is occupying a point in space, are they not?
And what if our synthesist is also famous for really knowing her way around a dental chair? I mean, that could… could… er, I’m sorry, I’m suddenly not feeling very well.
unless the worms toil in the soil, the ground wlll not be suitable for the growth of the plants.
Toil worms and soon the truth will spring from the courts and Obama or Taitz will have their plans come to bear fruit.
The more tears and urine rain upon the ground, the more strong will the plant become.
The Ninth is a court that is fairly unpredictable so bet not your home on the outcome of anything before that court!
Unfortunately for Orly, her process servers didn’t leave it with or even come in contact with “someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there.” Her process server talked with a Secret Service Agent, who doesn’t reside at the White House, and thus is not eligible to accept service.
All Orly has to do to effect service is serve Obama’s personal lawyer [FRCP 4(e)(2)(C), “delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.”]. The name, address, and contact info is available on the web.
The “discrepancy” not be obvious to a normal person. In the birther mind, the words “vital records” indicate multiple records which to them in inconsistent with the other statements that identify only on record. It’s just the usual mental damage to linguistic comprehension that comes from exposure to birtherism.
When you have attorneys like Orly Taitz is it simply a sample of how honest or dishonest attorneys as a whole are?
When attorneys , as a general rule, are liked about as much as used car salesmen, should any response, or postings, by an attorney to be considered to be mere attorney spoutings, or should proper deference given to the ability of a person to get a J.D, and practice law?
Is it a question of true, false, or an attorney’s opinion, and how to tell the difference between the three?
Undaunted, though, she’s now sent a subpoena to one of the defendants in Grinols, which means that she is trying to subpoena someone she says is a defendant, and she’s bypassed counsel.
A couple of extra points:
It was her 1st amended complaint–by which she single-handedly mooted any possible default procedure–that she attempted to serve at the WH.
This motion to stay proceedings is in direct violation of Judge England’s recent order to stop filing motions ex parte.
If anything about Obama gets to the SCOTUS and the vote is 5-4 does that mean that 5 eminent jurists are right, but the other 4 are wrong?
So, how is it that the average readers of postings can make judgements as to the truthfulness of any poster when even eminent jurists can not make correct decisions!
And yet we all believe we know what is best and what is correct in the things under discussion.
Why can we not assume that we, instead of they, could be wrong?
I do not know who is correct in the claims and I fear that I am not alone in that position, but I am still free to make firm statements, or not firm statements as to what is true!
It appears to me that it is impossible to make a personal service on the President of the USA! Unless you can give it to Michelle!
—-
This is why it is so important that Orly be disciplined by the Bar and the Court. She makes a complete mockery of the profession and our legal system. If she were an attorney in Illinois (where I practice law), just the content of her website alone would cause her to be disciplined.
Really? You don’t think the President of the United States has a personal lawyer to handle his personal legal needs? Why not just mail it to her? Oh wait, are you from the Taft school too saynomore? hehehe
—-
Most attorneys would have just tried to serve him via the U.S. mail. If that didn’t work, they would contact his personal lawyer and ask if the attorney would accept service. Orly hasn’t even tried these usual methods. Apparently, she prefers to manufacture drama rather than just take the simple, usual route.
Bob:
my question has always been why have no respectable lawyers (on the right) pursued obama’s eligibility?
can you imagine taitz before the supreme court with opposing counsel being conservative ted olson?
can you imagine oral arguments?
since it only takes 4 justices to grant cert, not even 4 conservatives granted a look see or papers from respondents
Guess what, John? Judicial and Legal (including Constitutional) standard interpretations of what constitutes satisfactory compliance with any particular law or Constitutional requirement, are not subject to your approval nor are they any less controlling on the basis of some imaginable different standard which you style as preemptively more reliable, based on the ignorance which comprises your common sense.
So in the real world, the Birth Certificate Verifications produced by Hawaii are NOT too inconsistent to be of any value, John; on the contrary, they meet the legal standard of compliance. That’s what confirms that all of these birth certificate challenges have no effect on Obama’s official eligibility to the Presidency.
It is only in the tiny intellectual Universe where you serve as God that an original BC must be produced and examined, presumably by you, or some expert who Your Imminence has approved, for what we all know is the sole purpose of using some resulting accusation of criminality on Obama’s part, as an excuse to claim that by a particular, indeed ANY legal theory, he has to go.
Is English your first language joe?
I still think the dream has something to do with a “pipe dream.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=pipe+dream%2C+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Benji Franklin April 2, 2013 at 4:55 pm (Quote) #
It is only in the tiny intellectual Universe where you serve as God that an original BC must be produced and examined, presumably by you, or some expert who Your Imminence has approved, for what we all know is the sole purpose of using some resulting accusation of criminality on Obama’s part, as an excuse to claim that by a particular, indeed ANY legal theory, he has to go.
Indeed. Watching Corsi on the Prophecy Club I am convinced he believes he is Vox Dei. Don’t they teach the Political Science students and lawyers at Harvard that the Old Testament is NOT the law of the land? Does Corsi know why Jefferson wanted a separation of church and state?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2B5uKdp3rI
What she really is a competent attorney and actually, valid evidence. She has neither so all of the honest judges have dismissed her attempts.
Btw John, even if she had served Obama correctly, she rendered any possible default moot with her First Ammended Complaint. She has not even tried to serve that one.
Now, since the FAC was after the inauguration, the only part of the complaint that can be construed as injury by Obama directly was already dismissed in Keyes v Obama and upheld by the 9th. Orly fails again.
Please tell me John, do you actually read the complaints and orders?
—-
Yes, undaunted despite her own just-filed ex parte expedited motion to stay all proceedings already scheduled for hearing on April 18th, and undaunted by the sanctions she incurred by pulling the same stunt with Occidental, and undaunted by the comprehensive letter she received (and filed!) from the House’s General Counsel objecting to her previous subpoena–she has now subpoenaed the party to appear in Court to testify against the U.S. Attorney on April 18th. I wonder whether she sent a copy of the latest subpoena to the General Counsel…
And indeed, she is also undaunted despite the fact that she is has just filed a brief trying to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for lying when she told Judge Guilford that sanctions for such subpoena-a-party-to-appear-in-Court-nonsense is merely part of the discovery process… See http://www.scribd.com/doc/133388748/CDCA-ECF-612-2013-03-31-Liberi-v-Taitz-Response-to-Additional-Briefing-Re-Sanctions
Orly is a contemptuous tornado.
Let me tell you what is unlikely John. Lets looki at it from a statistical POV.
If I were to throw 50 judges at you at random, since judges are chosen more or less randomly within a jurisdiction, for those 50, what are the chances that all of them would be “on the take”? What are the chances that not one single one of them would be honest, or courageous enough to stand up?
When you really think about the probability and realistic implications of your “no honest judges” excuse, it shows up as being ridiculous, ludicrous even.
Doc, you’ve been fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud and now you find boxes of dirt and cranks. With all the birthers you deal with, have you found any of their loose/lost screws?
All Denialists have something clinically deficient. With Orly Taitz, it’s the entire catalog.
With Klayman, it’s the remainder of the deck.
Orly and others could successfully serve the President as an individual, but they hate and avoid anything that is P.C.
Ah, the great one himself asks if English is my first language As that seems to indicate that he thinks the people who have an other first language are inferiors, who must be insulted because they do not have English as a First language.
Bias, Bigotry, and Stupidity are fellow traits in all of the human race!
What kind of person posts an April Fool Joke claiming that someone’s office had been raided by the Fed, and does not declare it a joke until you click on the named site that was supposed to have verifed that fact?
Can you trust further postings by anyone who would do such a silly thing?
Sears or Victoria’s Secret? Rim Shot!
Yeah, but Orly’s nuts.
And sometimes I ‘ave me doubts about you!
Last year, a couple of birfer lawyers and/or plaintiffs were able to serve Obama in his capacity as a candidate. I don’t know for sure if the service was entirely correct, but it was sufficiently close that Obama’s personal lawyers responded and did not make improper service an issue in their motions to dismiss.
Orly Taitz’s problem is that she decided 5 years ago that she was right about everything related to her legal terrorism and birfer nonsense and ignores every bit of evidence to the contrary…like the senseless problems she has with serving defendants.
Someone who understands that his audience is made up primarily of people who are smart enough to recognize an April Fool’s joke.
Of course, less intelligent people can and do slip through the door from time to time. But then you knew that as soon as you were allowed to post here.
Actually, more often than not around here, when a person is asked if English is their first language, it is in order to afford them extra dispensation for grammar and usage.
I think you’ll find, if you’ve an honest mind that is, that most people here have great admiration for someone who has made the effort to learn more than one language.
But you’ve a bit of a habit in barking up the wrong tree, don’t you…
You are completely absurd. Do some reading of the facts and get educated, for the sake of everyone.
It looks to me like Orly cannot distinguish the way to file a civil complaint vs. a criminal complaint. She herself cannot bring a criminal complaint. A criminal complaint has to go through law enforcement channels and then, although IANAL, I suppose it would be served through the US attorney if criminal activity was found with evidence. If it is a civil complaint brought by her on behalf of a client with standing, then I suppose it would be served through Obama’s private attorney, or by mail, or at his residence.
She claims there are conflicting rulings, but the conflict is the confusion in her head about the difference between how to serve criminal complaints and civil complaints, and whether her case is a civil case or a criminal case. One judge seems to be informing of the procedures for a criminal case, while another is stating the procedures for a civil case.
At any rate, at least one judge has already explained that at this point, the judiciary has no authority to remove the President, because the President is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer as Commander-in-Chief. In other words, the judiciary cannot send law enforcement to enforce any impeachment it might attempt even if the case were valid. Only Congress could make that determination at this point.
It’s like Orly wants a judge to issue a warrant for the President’s arrest without probable cause. Worse, she imagines that she herself will write the arrest warrant/Order for “treason.”
This is unconstitutional. Amendment IV of the Constitution: No warrant shall issue without probable cause. Thus far, the judge’s have not found that any of her complaints contain “probable cause”.
Exactly. At least they are being consistent with their misunderstanding of the word ‘parents’.
“27 million Americans can’t be wrong” – Barry Goldwater after losing to Lyndon Johnson by 42,825,463 to 27,146,969.
If that is so, what about 43 million Americans? Can they be wrong?
“I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.” Abraham Lincoln
I suspect the question may be a polite way of determining whether or not you may have difficulty in understanding the word ‘Supreme’ signifies in the name ‘Supreme Court’.
Why do you not explain to me why 4 of the judges are not in error when the court is split 5-4 for either side?
Is there a correct side to a decision that is simply decided by the vote or are the dissenting justices incorrect , or correct, in their decisions?
Is the majority of people always correct in their beliefs if they over-ride the minority who may have different opinions?
Posters think Orly Taitz is nuts, and that opinion is valid for them, but does that make Orly Taitz nuts in reality, or just in the universe of this web posting?
I agree completely with Abraham Lincoln and that is why I comment on the posters who say Orly Taitz, Birther, and anyone else are nuts!
They can not know that, and , even if they suspect it, they are not capable of making that determination as to mental status without examining her personally!
Just as I can not say anyone here is crazy , nuts, insane , or even honest.
But the show must go on, so continue with the verbal antics as I rest my weary eyes.
It seems we’re straying into quantum physics here.
Maybe Orly thinks she has served Obama because at some point his particles and that of her papers have intersected in the quantum universe.
It’s a novel approach to the Law, to say the least.
At the risk of usurping Misha’s role here, let me try this:
Orly is driving down the road and is pulled over by a cop. When the officer asks her if he knew how fast she was going, Orly responds: “No officer, but I know exactly where I am!”
Ba-da-bing!
One of the reasons to be scared of the multiverse concept (that every possible reality actually exists) is that this would mean there is an infinite number of Orlys out there.
One of the reasons to cheer the multiverse concept is that there would be an infinite number of universes where Orly rots in prison. 😉
Let’s look at Orly Taitz:
refusenik – check
messhuggener – check
Orly read the manual:
http://books.google.com/books/about/How_to_make_yourself_miserable.html?id=qj0Gr0rTk8YC
I rest my case.
Orly Taitz’s apparent goals and beliefs about the President’s eligibility are not represented in your question by the situation of a court split of 5-4. They are represented in your theretical scenario by a court decision of 9-0 against her position.
Some things in life are as certain as you are going to get. With regards Taitz, your question is therefore irrelevant.
If you want to explore the underlying premises of the Constitution’s framework, how power is distributed, what judgement actually means in society, that is a different question, but not one that applies to the legal arguments of Orly Taitz.
…theoretical…
There, take that, iPad, with your continual sabotage of my ability to edit my post properly within the five minute time limit. 🙂
Mesjogge (pronounce muh-sho-kh-uh) in Dutch. Though you would need a lot of gotspe to use it addressing a Jew being from the Gooi yourself, as I am.
Sorry, Mishenka, just trying (again) to prove that English is not my first language. And still no other poster is treating me as an inferior or otherwise insulting me here. Funny, right, saynomorejoe?
Steven Wright:
I was stopped by a cop. “Do you know you were going 70 miles an hour?”
I said that was impossible. I live half a mile from here, and I’ve been out of the house 10 minutes.
“Nuts” isn’t a clinical term nor is “crazy.” A person doesn’t have to have a doctorate in psychology to claim that another person is crazy. There is no denying that by observing Orly (through her own filter of her blog and her filings and her court appearances and her interviews) that Orly is crazy. She’s crazy in the sense that her behavior differs greatly from the norm — it’s way off the charts. Just the amount of time and money she’s spent on her fruitless effort is crazy.
Perhaps Orly is sane and she’s keeping it private.
There is no absolute right or wrong in the law. The law simply is what courts say it is. A 9-0 majority could be “wrong”, but, whether 9-0 or 5-4, the majority decides what the law is. No matter how you would set up a legal system, there would have to be some final authority that would decide.
I have never met Orly Taitz and I am not qualified to make psychiatric diagnoses even if I had. All I can say is that her actions have achieved absolutely nothing-in fact they have more likely helped rather than harmed Obama- and yet she continues doing the same thing over and over, which is how Einstein defined insanity. So, I feel comfortable saying that her actions are insane. Therefore, she is either insane or is sane, yet acting insanely. I leave it to you to decide which.
From Public Policy Polling:
Conspiracy Theory Poll Results
On our national poll this week we took the opportunity to poll 20 widespread and/or infamous conspiracy theories. Many of these theories are well known to the public, others perhaps to just the darker corners of the internet. Here’s what we found:
☞LINK
Good grief, I surely would not want to examine her personally, and I pity the one psychiatrist who will eventually have to do that.
However, I have been reading Orly’s screeches for nearly five years, and since I can understand a little Russian, I have been listening to her diatribes on radio and tv and I can honestly say that beyond any doubt (except for the very odd chance that it is not really the same woman who said and wrote all that) that over the years there has been a clear and increasing trend towards paranoid schizophrenia. She needs some help, obviously, but since these law suits more or less ensure she cannot become physically violent and a danger to herself or others, she is not getting any. Yet.
I’m uncertain about that.
Brooklyn judge slams birther lawsuit as ‘fanciful, delusional and irrational’ and orders theorist to pay $177G
Judge Arthur Schack wrote the case brought by Christopher Earl Struck claiming President Barack Obama was not truly born in Hawaii and therefore disqualified as a presidential a possible movie script entitled ‘The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da VInci Code.’
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/brooklyn-judge-slams-birther-case-orders-theorist-pay-177g-article-1.1306268#ixzz2PPCOafKZ
It is actually $177,707 but who’s counting? 😆 Wow in esse stepped in it as big as we thought he did. I will check his SCRIBD page to see if he posted his reply in the appeal. This is another huge win for Apuzzo who helped Strunk with his case.
Gabe
I see that you are your normal lucid self; Mailer should be glad that you didn’t take to writing while he was alive. Surely, you would have eclipsed him.
By the way, did you have to attend school to become a meshugga, or are you natural born?
Mario and Strunk must be so excited with this latest result….
Well, we know that there are at least three vital records that they checked:
1) The 1960-1964 birth index
2) The electronic birth record
3) The physical birth record
Oh no! When Hawai’i created the birth index, they invalidated every birth record contained within the index! And then they doubled down by putting every vital record still on file in an electronic form! Millions of Hawai’ians are now illegal aliens!
By law, he is only allowed to verify that the information matches. He is not permitted by law, nor is he qualified, to determine whether a given document is a true and accurate copy. If I were to copy all of the information on a form I created that is clearly not a copy of the document on file, he would have to say the information matched, but would be barred from noting that it is not a copy.
And how dare he call an Original Certificate of Live Birth an Original Record!
So, there are three known records, the information on which has been verified three times to match the copy Obama posted on the web, such verification done within the limits of the law. What discrepancy?
Apparenly in esse has filed a 954-page appeal. AnitaMaria at The Fogbow posted this link but she says that it keeps crashing when she tries to read it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94586470/Appellant-s-BRIEF-and-APPENDIX-NYS-Appellate-Division-2nd-Dept-Appeal-2012-05515
From my perspective, I don’t think Orly WANTS to serve the president in his personal capacity.
If Orly had to go up against President Obama’s personal attorneys, they would ask for sanctions and attorney fees.
It is always safer for Orly to NEVER get service correct so she only has to deal with US Attorneys and they’ll never ask for sanctions or costs. Also, it allows her to continuously claim that all judges are corrupt and that always helps bring in donations from people dumb enough to send them to her.
Numerous times I’ve politely asked Orly why she never serves the president by USPS and she never answers or even puts the question through.
Anita needs to get a real computer and a real OS. Although I refuse to wade through this slough, access works fine on Ubuntu.
Just read about the Brooklyn decision…Strunk should have known better to try and tell that tale before a Brooklyn judge.
I’m sure that the law firms will move pretty briskly to seize Mr. Strunk’s assets. That’s going to be a heckuva lot of tinfoil, though…
Isn’t there something in the Constitution called “Full Faith and Credit” clause that requires States to accept as Prima Faci evidence any and all vital records provided by another State?
So if Obama’s birth certificate were either sent by or validated as official by the State of Hawaii, then that would have to be accepted as the official vital record.
The State of Hawaii has, on mutliple occasions, verified that information contained in the PDF file is accurate. I believe it was Orly herself, on another case, that compelled Hawaii to verify to the court that Obama’s birth certificate is accurate. Unwittingly, she made the PDF file valid in the eyes of the court.
So you can see that cases like this are now essentially futile. If the AG were forced to verify the BC as valid, Obama’s lawyers would now only need to present the PDF file that was verified as valid “in court” by Hawaii.. And Alabama must accept it.
and Firefox…
I am not sure that it was worth the effort; there is an implausible plot, the villains of the plot are telegraphed way too early, tho’ the motives make no sense to me…… it was meant to be fiction, right?
Back to War and Peace for me, I think.
“Isn’t there something in the Constitution called “Full Faith and Credit” clause that requires States to accept as Prima Faci evidence any and all vital records provided by another State?”
A touchstone of belief, and so wrong!
A fake birth certificate in Texas, confirmed as such by court action in Texas, submitted to California, is prima facie evidence of the actual birth in Texas?
There is no priviso in law that a fake recorded in one state is prima facie evidence of its validity in another state, is there?
I have heard that here in the USA that the Government can get fake birth certificates to protect witnesses! Is that not a fact, or a rumor?
And , if that be so, then how is it possible for it to be valid?
Birthers are pretty dense. The State of Hawaii confirms that Obama’s BC is from their files and it is on their freak’n website. If Obama’s BC was a forgery then the state would not back the image of it or link to the White House website.
Seriously you’re thinking that a person in witness protection who tries to fly under the radar to avoid being seen would run for the most visible position in the world as President of the United States? This is stupid. You’re assuming it’s fake based on nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. We’re not talking about texas or california we’re talking about Hawaii and the document has been certified and verified by the issuing authority.
“saynomrejoe” appears to be honing his skills at satire, though funny, he is not yet ready for prime time, I would suggest that he hold off on presenting an application to “The Onion”
—
Her silence and censorship speak volumes…
That’s an interesting theory. I also believe that on some level Orly realizes that she is never going to win one of her cases on the merits, so she tries to get her way through a default judgment.
What she doesn’t realize is that no Federal court is going to grant a default judgment against the President of the United States. And even if she was granted a default judgment, it wouldn’t get her what she is asking for.
—
Sorry, pal, but there IS a Full Faith and Credit Clause. That’s largely what permits our states to exist as a Union and permits people to travel/move from one state to another.
I don’t know what state you live in, but I bet you’d be pretty unhappy if you drove to another state where they didn’t accept your driver’s license, etc. I can just see a cop looking at your license while arresting you for driving, saying “It would be so wrong for me to believe you have a real license to drive, just because I’m looking at your state certified license.” Maybe the cop will explain to you, “I have no faith and give no credit to your home state that issued this bogus license based on some bogus birth certificate your state probably forged, so I’m gonna throw you in jail for driving with a state-forged license and for conspiring with your state to commit fraud in our state.”
It wouldn’t take a prophet to know what was going to happen to Strunk. It was a given from the moment the judge had to explain to him in open court that the Da Vinci Code is fiction. In fact, I thought the decision was old news and now I am looking forward to reading the judge’s decision…if anyone has a link. Funny, but a lot of searches for birther info just bring up garbage on my Google search.
Strunk might have had more success being a science-fiction writer, or maybe historical romance. The same with that Susan girl who started out her complaint with “The Vikings, a people known to flee from religious and political upheaval…”
Seriously, some of these people really do have talents, and they shouldn’t be wasting them in this way.
Going one step beyond, arguendo, I believe that a government issued birth certificate issued to a person in some assumed “witness protection program” is also 100% valid. So long as the issuing agency has the statutory authority to issue a birth certificate (or “certificate of live birth” or whatever other feckless parsing of those terms some choose to undertake), such a certificate is 100% valid and authentic, by definition, irrespective of whatever machinations went into creating such a record.
I do not expect saynomorejoe/Gabe/john to understand any of the above.
Hi BL!! Glad to see you’re back.
I’ve been entertaining them with my Borscht Belt schtick.
What do you mean, “as such” — do you mean “confirmed to be fake”? Since the FFCC says
…then if your putative Texas BC were proven to be fake in court, it would indeed, by the FFCC, be considered to be fake in California as well.
Again, you’re flailing with poorly worded hypotheticals.
In the very real example at hand, the State of Hawaii has confirmed the particulars of President Obama’s birth, many times over. And no other state agency anywhere in the US has ever said otherwise. A state’s duties under the FFCC are thus crystal clear to anyone but birthers.
As has been said before, not germane to this topic. But: the birth certificates to protect witnesses are created legally, presumably under the guidelines of certain laws. They are thus legitimate documents, created for a specific purpose. The FFCC says that if these are deemed legitimate by the issuing state, yes, they must be considered legitimate by every other state.
If you were to need for some reason to challenge such a certificate’s legitimacy, you would need to take your case to the state of its issuance. Challenging it in another state would not fly.
Here’s the recent Strunk ruling that I found from March 29, 2013.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/133867183/2013-03-29-Strunk-v-New-York-State-BoE-OrDER-Re-Sanctions
“Schack also mocked Strunk for claiming a “massive conspiracy to defraud American voters (that) was perpetrated by hundreds of individuals, at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church and especially the Jesuits.” He imposed the fees for three law firms that opposed Strunk’s lawsuits.”
Seriously, Strunk found a way to bring in the Jesuits. I guess I never knew about this because of the subliminal messages in college. This gets crazier by the day.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/brooklyn-judge-slams-birther-case-orders-theorist-pay-177g-article-1.1306268#ixzz2PR8TXcsH
—
BTW, in the 1970’s, I used to wait the counter/tables at the Concord coffee shop til 3 am for the after show crowd. Clearest memories include: (1) feeding Muhammad Ali’s entourage after they put him to bed every night at 8 p.m. (he was training to fight Norton), (2) Red Buttons stiffed me on an egg salad sandwich!; (3) New Yorkers want “2 cents plain” and “egg creams”; (4) beware of men at the end of singles weekend who didn’t score with the female guests…
Meanwhile Orly is trying to subpoena the defense attorneys in Grinols.
—
Unholy Cow! I wish I lived nearby so I could pop in and watch this all play out in Court. She is just screaming for sanctions and, more importantly in my opinion, to have her admission to the district court revoked.
p.s. she seems to have forgotten that she has moved to stay all proceedings…
Strunk should be writing scripts, instead of screeds/briefs.
“If the complaint in this action was a movie script, it would be entitled ‘The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da Vinci Code,’ ” wrote Judge Arthur Schack, calling the allegations, “fanciful, delusional and irrational.”
And Strunk is serious. Hey Chris – get help.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/brooklyn-judge-slams-birther-case-orders-theorist-pay-177g-article-1.1306268#ixzz2PRGgEOUN
I searched for “strunk jesuits” and found a couple of YouTube interviews of him from over a year ago. I’m not in a position to listen to these right now, but one of the text intros by the poster started:
Strunk has gotta be just giddy about the first Jesuit Pope. I’m surprised he hasn’t fled to Montana or Idaho already.
One can hope.
Strunk should be writing scripts, instead of screeds/briefs.
Agreed. The cast:
The village rabbi: Phillip Berg
The village sheriff: Joe Arpaio, and village deputy, Mike Zullo
The village prosecutor: Andrew Thomas
The village judge: Roy Moore
The village professor: Jerome Corsi
Three village lawyers: Taitz, Apuzzo & Strunk
The village presidential candidate: Keith (?) Judd
we just need a village priest, and one seditious newspaper…
—
I must say, besides the obvious objections available to the US Attorney, I am wondering what the US Attorney’s strategy is behind it’s decision to represent “Congress” as a party (when no members were named or served with summons/complaint), and while in-house counsel is representing them as 3rd parties. What am I missing here?
Justlw- here’s what we’re dealing with. Christopher Strunk on the Clay Davis “show.”
http://youtu.be/Xi6fJSDrsec
I beg a favor of saynomorejoe: Please, live up to your name. If you think there is a conspiracy of silence against you (apologies to Oscar Wilde), please join it.
misha marinsky:
Strunk should be writing scripts, instead of screeds/briefs.
Deborah:
Agreed. The cast:
The village rabbi: Phillip Berg
The village sheriff: Joe Arpaio, and village deputy, Mike Zullo
The village prosecutor: Andrew Thomas
The village judge: Roy Moore
The village professor: Jerome Corsi
Three village lawyers: Taitz, Apuzzo & Strunk
The village presidential candidate: Keith (?) Judd
we just need a village priest, and one seditious newspaper…
*************
And the village idiots? I propose all the birthers who continue to post here. Only one problem: would their collective IQ make them smart enough to qualify for their roles?
misha marinsky
Black Lion: Brooklyn judge slams birther lawsuit as ‘fanciful, delusional and irrational’ and orders theorist to pay $177G
“Schack also mocked Strunk for claiming a “massive conspiracy to defraud American voters (that) was perpetrated by hundreds of individuals, at the behest of the Roman Catholic Church and especially the Jesuits.” He imposed the fees for three law firms that opposed Strunk’s lawsuits.”
*************
And, adding insult to injury, Strunk now has to stew over the fact there’s a Jesuit Pope. LMAO
A horse walks into a bar. “Why such a long face?”, asked the barkeep.
“If you were a horse, you’d have a long face too.”
J.D. Sue April 3, 2013 at 6:18 pm (Quote) #
Andrew Morris: Meanwhile Orly is trying to subpoena the defense attorneys in Grinols.
—
I must say, besides the obvious objections available to the US Attorney, I am wondering what the US Attorney’s strategy is behind it’s decision to represent “Congress” as a party (when no members were named or served with summons/complaint), and while in-house counsel is representing them as 3rd parties. What am I missing here?
Ianal but my guess is that he is representing them defensively in their presumed role assigned by the birthers to impeach the President, since the judiciary is already stating in effect it cannot impeach because it cannot enforce. I think it is better for the U.S. attorney to assume a defensive posture of Congress than to assume a defensive posture of the President at this point. If he assumed a defensive posture of the President that would indicate a threat (which there is not). By adopting a defensive posture of Congress, he lets the birthers know they have an even bigger obstacle to overcome (Congress) before they get even close to attacking the President.
Except that the State of Texas didn’t validate that fraudulent BC, it wasn’t issued by the state, but by a county. The procedures that allowed it to happen have been corrected so it doesn’t happen again.
Gov. Perry signed a new law just this week requiring each new baby to produce its passport before it is allowed to leave the birth canal.
But add them all up and they don’t even make a village idiot.
I think that the US Attorney is representing the interests of the United States insofar as these are impacted by Orly’s lawsuit. The individual members of Congress that she failed to serve properly and who are, per General Counsel to Congress, not going to comply with the subpoenas, are now out of the picture. So that leaves the US Attorney.
But the INS claimed in a case in California that the Certified Birth Certificate provided to the defendent was , in fact, false as it had been falsely filed and accepted by the state as true!
As to full faith and credit the law is explicit, no?
” USC › Title 28 › Part V › Chapter 115 › 1738prevnext..28 USC 1738 – State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit
.
Current through Pub. L. 112-283. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.
The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken. ”
Can I see anything there that says Birth Certificates are included in the terminology of the Law?
I see no reference to documents filed by individuals in the recording offices.
Explain it , can you?
I’ll just stop you there. Because you are.
Sure. Obama’s BC was filed by the hospital. It’s even signed by the doctor and everything.
Could provide a cite for that case in California that had a hospital submitted BC being fraudulent?
I once remarked to my step-father that all the cars in the Concord parking lot were Cadillacs, except for one Lincoln and ours: a Buick.
My step-father said “Want to see a stampede? Announce over the PA ‘there’s a Cadillac on fire in the parking lot.’ ”
Another Passover at the Concord, there was an outbreak of the crowd loving stomach virus. People were dropping like flies. I caught it, with disastrous results. “Don’t worry,” said my step-father. “The virus is kosher.” Since I was lying in bed while everyone else was enjoying the resort, my step-father walked into the room with a copy of Playboy and Penthouse, bought at the Concord’s newsstand.
“Don’t let your mother see these.”
Lola looked at us quizzically. Did I mention poodles are the second smartest dogs?
Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night. – Woody Allen
Source? Link? Citation? Bueller?
As an interesting aside, of all Federal Judges in cases Orly submitted, all but one were nominated by Reagan or Bush I or II (most were Bush II). Only Judge Carter was appointed by a Democrat, President Clinton. This includes the birther v. birther slap fight of Liberi v. Tatiz (California and original Pennsylvania editions).
So, John thinks that Republicans appoint dishonest Judges.
You limited it to hospital submitted for a purpose , no?
A hospital submitted bc is different than a doctor submitted BC somehow?
Why is it different , or is it that you think that not all bc’s are correctly submitted, and that somehow you feel that they are not all honest and must not be accepted if certified?
FF&C is between states. The Feds get to settle disputes and say how state documents are used, not states.
I’m limiting it to reality, not some “what if.” Reality is what matters, not what could happen if some weirdo gets to set up a hypothetical.
Reality wins. You lose.
Yep, that’s exactly the YouTube video I pulled the quote from. (From the text/description thingy ahead of the comments section, whatever that’s called)
Source http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1608338.html
“Bustamante’s reliance on the California delayed registration of birth is not persuasive because the government presented testimony at trial from Reverend Masters, the senior pastor of the Holman United Methodist Church, that the church did not own the building listed on the delayed registration of birth until 1951, 5 years after Bustamante’s purported baptism at that location. Additionally, the government produced evidence from the church’s records that Bustamante was baptized in 1971, not 1946 as listed on the baptismal certificate relied upon for his delayed registration of birth. Bustamante does not point to any evidence in the record that contradicts Reverend Masters’s testimony or calls it into question. Thus, the only reasonable conclusion that a jury could draw based on the evidence is that Bustamante’s California delayed registration of birth was invalid because it was based entirely on a fraudulent baptismal certificate”
Some error you will find in the conclusions of the statement of the dissent, I am sure!
No relevance to Obama, Obama’s BC wasn’t a delayed registration
I’m starting to think this joe guy is traderjack same bs he spews over on amazon including the witness protection crap.
And the fact that there is the US Code covering the fact, and that it is in the US Constitution means it is not the Government Law,
And that law says it covers act and proceedings of the courts and not the public records is not sure or important?
—
I understand that the US Attorney is representing the US interests, which is what he said in Court. But somewhere along the line he started saying he was representing Congress and all federal defendants sued in their official capacities. See footnote in latest filing http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Opposition-to-stay0001.pdf
There has to be some strategy in making this change; I’m just trying to figure it out.
what is amazon but a place to buy stuff. Can I find my stuff over there? Other things there I can find?
Relevence ot Obama, no, but, relevence to Certified BC very important, as it shows issuing department does not know truth of filing of original document!
If state not know truth of filed document, how can state say document true?
Do they say document issued is true, or just say is copy of document without saying whether true or not!
—-
The US Attorney cannot represent the President anyway in this case because Obama is being sued in his individual capacity (not his official capacity).
Is there doubting of the accuracy of posting by me? Please point out so I can learn of error and make corrections.
please go easy on “saynomorejoe”, his application was turned down by “The Onion”
To begin with, trying sounding less like a broken teletype machine.
What is your native language?
No, Joe sounds fine.
Sigh.
The archived birth event record is not a “Certificate” of any kind, because it is not “Certified”. It is only a sworn record. That is why it is guarded and under controlled access.
When the State (or in some States, lower jurisdictions too) ‘copy’ the information from that source birth event record onto another piece of paper (usually security paper these days) and affix a certification to it (consisting at minimum of the State Seal (or the seal of the issuing jurisdiction) and a signed attestation as to its accuracy), then, and only then does it become a “Birth Certificate”.
All “Birth Certificates” are copies to the extent that they have been prepared by copying the information from the source document to the target copy. How that copy was produced, by handwriting, by photocopy, by computer database printout, whatever, is immaterial.
The ONLY THING THAT IS IMPORTANT IS THE INFORMATION on the document and that it is correct. The information could be written in crayon on a piece of tissue paper and it would be a perfectly acceptable birth certificate if it carried the appropriate certification. The certification is the State’s guarantee that the information on the document is accurate.
A piece of paper with out a certification is not, by definition a certificate. In everyday conversation, the source document that records the birth event, usually provided by the hospital, is called a “Birth Certificate”. Even, according to the Doc, in the Vital Statistics departments they use the term “Birth Certificate” for the source record. That is however, technically incorrect because that document is not a certificate. Period.
Every Birth Certificate, is a certified copy of the relevant information from the source birth event record. Every one. Furthermore, every Birth Certificate is an ‘original Birth Certificate’ because it carries the ‘original’ certification.
A photocopy of a Birth Certificate is not itself a Birth Certificate, because it no longer carries an ‘original’ certification. The seal, if visible in the photocopy is not 3D for a start, and security paper may well do strange things to the resultant photocopy (see Mitt Romney’s document for example). Likewise a PDF is not a Birth Certificate.
A photocopy of a Birth Certificate is an image of a Birth Certificate. A PDF of a Birth Certificate is an computerized image of a Birth Certificate. No one pretends they are legal in a court of law as an ‘original’ certificate. They are images of the ‘original’ certificate.
The State of Hawai’i didn’t verify that the images were Birth Certificates because they weren’t Birth Certificates. What the State of Hawai’i verified, at least a half dozen times, including two official replies to the Governments of other States, that the information on the images matched the information on the archived birth event record source document.
And that is the end of the story. Obama was born in Hawai’i in 1961. He is old enough and is a Natural Born Citizen. That is two of the three Constitutional requirements, and the only thing of any relevance that the Birth Certificate can tell us.
There is no wiggle room, no yabbuts, no frog marching. You would have better luck pressing the no-dual citizenship thing and getting Kim Jong-un to make Obama a North Korean citizen.
Live with it.
Article IV Section 1:
Vital Statistics records are official State records and are therefore explicitly in the focus of the FF&C clause in the Constitution. Vital Statistics records are Births, Deaths, Marriages, Divorces, etc.
The States are Constitutionally required to give FF&C to Birth Certificates from other States. Congress is required by the Constitution to prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof, and they have done so.
Exactly what are you talking about?
I used to work with teletype machines, and they made more sense than Joe.
Ah, no, I was born in a foreign country, indeed, but they spoke not English!
But, dear friends, you claim I post bs and I ask for information as to where I post that!
And response is not coming!
However, I will dispute the facts that I know might be wrong, such as, there is no birth certificate!
In present case, the Obama BC, if correct , has the title of birth certificate on the document signed and attested to by the Doctor! Is that not accurate?
And that document was recorded in the proper office, but , it is a State document that was completed by the State?
No, there is not an indication on the Birth Certificate signed by the Doctor that he was an officer of the the State. Is that not true?
So the document is a Vital Record, but not an official document enacted by the Government, but is simply recorded by the State.
Is the State responsible for the information on the Document? No! they have not the responsiblity for the completion of the information of the document, but simply must tell the public what is on the document, regardless of the truth of the supplied information.
Is there a dispute about that fact!
Indeed, so did I, I had Model 16 and Model 28, and they never made sense either! But made much noise printing long ago!
Doubting the law as posted which says”The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.
The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken. ”
Perhaps you are missing the fact that it refers to the records and proceedings of the court, and not all of the state records. But, yet, it may be construed in a different way if you wish to make a particular point!
Perhaps any confusion results from the basic problem of first asking and thinking about what a birth certificate is in the USA as it may be different in my place of birth!
Strangely, the BC is not a product of the State! It is product of the participants of the birthing of the child!
And the product of the action is the words put down by the clerks,nurse, doctors, and parents, and no one can challenge the words as they are being written onto the document!
A group product without verification but simply attested to by the person who compiles the document.
Honesty may be there, but, so might dishonesty. As even in my birth country the information is posted for reasons that might be dishonest, and many people are named as fathers wrongly.
This is not true in the USA it is hoped.
But beliefs of accuracy may be desired, but not real!
If Birth certificates are worthless as a trusted source, why do you birthers keep demanding them?
Please give an example how “your place of birth” handles this differently. What “verification” does the state employ to make sure there is not a conspiracy of the parents, the nurse and the attending doctor?
What “verification” e.g. with regard to “who the father is” do you suggest instead? Do you know of any country that mandates a DNA test before issuing a birth certificate?
Besides, since it makes no legal difference in the US who the father is (Bill Clinton, Saddam Hussein, the frozen sperm of George Washington, the frozen sperm of Adolf H. etc.) – only if you’re not native-born and want to be President, but it’s not the point of birth certificates to prove NBC status of foreign-born children -, that’s a moot point anyway.
Birthers are only interested in negative proof, or absence of proof. If they demand something and it’s not presented, they cry “this proves it doesn’t exist, therefore usurper”. If it is presented, they go “that doesn’t prove a thing anyway”.
I don’t know if there’s a short common expression for this MO, but birthers have perfected it.
I’ve predicted long ago that if birthers ever got what they wanted (the original vault document presented in court and validated by a forensic expert), they would immediately go “that the BC isn’t forged doesn’t prove the information on it is correct, we need to see the hospital records, hear testimony of the nurse and physician etc.”.
This troll’s posts are nothing more than a peurile attempt at spreading FUD.
And yes, as Dr Kenneth Noisewater pointed out, this sounds a lot like birther bigot traderjack.
One word…. NUTS
All you are saying is that some people *could* lie.
The birth certificate, however, is a product of the state, made from the vital record produced by the doctor, etc. That’s what the certification does, produces a state document. I myself am not sure about the archived original records, but I might suppose they become state documents upon receipt. Certainly, they now belong to the state.
There are home births, as well. There are, as you have noted elsewhere, the existence of delayed birth certificates. President Eisenhower, for one, had no birth certificate until he received a delayed birth certificate when he was already running for the presidency. Shocking that we could have tolerated such uncertainty, such lack of 1000% absolute proof?
That brings up another point: birth certificates have not existed forever. As secure as they are, especially compared to the way we used to do things, they are not *absolute* proof against fraud or deception.
Is that your point? So? Do you have trouble getting out of bed in the morning until you absolutely prove the floor exists?
The point that matters is: do you have any evidence of fraud in a specific instance? Say, for the President?
Likely, the records do not exist. Hawaii law currently requires medical records for births to be kept 25 years past the child’s 18th birthday, which, in the President’s case, was 2004. Most institutions destroy records once they are no longer legally required to be kept, since storage space is not free, so they likely are gone. As for testimony, we know the doctor is deceased and any residents, nurses, etc. still alive could hardly be expected to remember one unremarkable birth from 50 years ago among the hundreds they would have attended.
In a metaphysical sense, one could always postulate that back in 1961 Kapiolani Hospital was engaged in some scheme to falsely record births. But what is the evidence for that? There is none. And of course, looking at the original “vault copy” would provide no information, since if there had been such a scheme, they would have produced a perfectly regular b.c. back in 1961.
Moreover, what would be the motivation? For the doctors, hospital staff etc. to risk their careers and prison would have taken truly massive amounts of money, since several people would have had to be involved. The Dunhams were far from rich. And what would be the motivation for the Dunhams? Some time back, I researched the citizenship laws from that era and we discussed it here. A child born outside the US to Ms Dunham would not have been a US citizen at birth. However, she had the right to bring him to the US as her minor child and, upon arrival here, to apply for a certificate of citizenship. So, even in the event of a foreign birth there was absolutely no reason to create a false birth record (unless they knew then that the baby would grow up to be President). So the entire thing is nonsensical.
Ditto.
Not important at all. You’re making a claim that because it could happen in certain instances that it must have happened in this instance. It’s a false dishonest argument on your part. No the issuing department would know the truth of the document if Law enforcement asked them to issue a new certificate for the witness protection program.
The word games are starting to sound like jack as well. Not to mention the foreign birth.
Above all this, is it truly reasonable to have a decades old plan to install a “manchurian candidate” with a foreign sounding name that’s black?
I don’t think this would have been a well supported idea back in the late 50’s or early 60’s.
meaning less is the discussion when discussion turns to vituperation!
For those who are in the learned capacity, State of Hawaii issues non-certified copies of birth certificates according to Hawaiian Law!
The Certified Copy is the same but with stamp on bottom and signature of Registrar!
Which is true copy?
Uncapable of intependent thought?
Computer issued BC;s must be similar, no? If not, consequence indicate that bc’s subject to manipulation, is true!
Adult people realize that correctness can never be assumed in important documents!
But, now to work here!
Later, mayhaps!
Ignore the troll.
I think you cracked the whole case wide open.
Finally, someone has figured this stuff all out.
I’d love to see you on all the news shows, and late night television shows. Maybe Survivor or Big Brother will call you as well.
Please give me your name and phone number so I can contact my people and get this out there, so the world knows the truth finally.
Thanks!
Then what is the point of issuing important documents if nobody accepts the information in them as correct. What is the point in me carrying a driver’s license if when I get pulled over the police officer says “Well I see this driver’s license that you are Matt R living at blah blah rd born on such and such a date but i can’t assume that is correct. So I am going to have to bring you down to the station until we can perform a full battery of tests to confirm your identity”? Neither DNA nor fingerprint evidence was captured and stored at my birth so without using documents, how would I even be able to prove who I am?
The fact is that adult people assume that important documents are correct unless overwhelming evidence is presented that brings that information into question. That is exactly what happened in the California case you referenced above. In the case of Obama, nobody has presented any evidence that refutes the facts listed on his birth certifcate.
—
And even if it was, how can we be sure that they didn’t switch your dna/prints with another’s baby and lied about it…….. How can we be sure we even exist….
How Can You Be In Two Places At Once When You’re Not Anywhere At All?
http://firesigntheatre.com/media/media.php?item=hcyb
If, as you say, they are the same except for the stamp and signature, both are true copies. The only difference is that one true copy is certified and the other true copy is not.
Duh.
Anyone figured out Joe’s first language.
It’s painful wading through the broken English.
Definition of crank- it DOES sound like Orly.
According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:
Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29
More about cranks from Wiki link posted above
In addition, many cranks:
seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus , implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility,
claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.
Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, frequently:
exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,
ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.
Is not surprising that believers do not want to believe other than what they believe in their hearts, and not in their minds.
Religions full of this sort of thing!
You can not understand cut and paste from US Law sites?
You have seen sample writing where half the words are mis-spelled and people can still understand meaning of sentence.
Deficiency in education, or in basic thoughts. Interesting concept to explore!
Questions about non-understood statement will be answered with other explanation , but fears exist that explanation not sufficient to overthrow believed statements of others.
April Fool joke must exist in some minds to be so non-understanding.
Try Again, I will
Poster understand Wiki posted by those who want to post, right or wrong, until other challenge. Why else items removed from Wiki about thing, people, and word thoughts.
Believe Wiki if desired, but caution use in belief
saynomorejoe April 4, 2013 at 10:38 pm (Quote) #
She IS a crank, saynomorejoe. You can research outside of Wiki and find the same result. Feel free. The essential definition of a crank is a person who insists on opposing the consensus in spite of all agreed upon evidence. Their minds cannot, indeed will not be changed by any amount of evidence presented to them.
Scientific crank
http://www.sciforums.com/How-can-we-tell-if-someone-is-a-scientific-crank-t-5752.html
More on the scientific crank- from link above. Totally Orly (and her parents were scientists)
(1) First and most important of these traits is that cranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues. Cranks typically do not understand how the scientific process operates that they need to try out their ideas on colleagues, attend conferences and publish their hypotheses in peer-reviewed journals before announcing to the world their startling discovery. Of course, when you explain this to them they say that their ideas are too radical for the conservative scientific establishment to accept.
(2) A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia, which manifests itself in several ways:
(a) He considers himself a genius.
(b) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads….
(c) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to “enemies” for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work….
(d) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein….
(e) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.
Fine definition! Expect you that it applies to site posters, or to site owners, or to just opponents of said people!
Expand discussion to greater levels, let us see who here in the postiing site, meets defintion or no!
Self describing might be necessary. Not crank myself, but see many on television!
You, I thank, for description clear!
You drive car across Styx, no? Crankshaft not hurt by water, yes?
Is good.
No, no – I thank YOU for making clear something.
Without question answers improbable to provide!
People believe answers I post, or think not worthy of discussion!
Sad, soon time for dining and must retire from site!
He tries to sound Japanese/Chinese but I guess he just pretends. It sounds as bad as birthers trying to write fake ebonics.
There is no common language that uses a word order that we’ve come to love from Yoda. Troll exposed. 🙂
Joe is troll. Brain affected by firewater, many moons. Need personal Walk of Sorrow.
Exactly.
Wow, I used to listen to Clay Douglas on WWCR on the shortwave years ago. Like two decades ago. Back before they all got on the internet. President Clinton was murder on those shortwave guys’ blood pressure–after over four years of President Obama, I figured he’d have stroked out by now!
Yeah, but I think he’d need help with the dialogue.
—
I love that line; seem to remember Frank Zappa singing it…
It gets better and better. Orly just posted the decision in Indiana rejecting her complaint of elections fraud, and is announcing that finally she’s got a victory.
What , you people object an April Fools joke posting? For heavens’s sake, you got took by the great SayNoMoreJoe, from San Diego!
But, it shows that you don’t want to discuss the actual facts about the BC system in the USA, and you just want to vent on people who try to post anything you disagree with.
None of the statements that I made were wrong, the information provided was correct, and yet you don’t want to dispute it in the slightest way.
But, it was fun to watch you try to squirm out of the answers by saying it didn’t relate to Obama.
There was no mention of Obama’s bc’s in my postings, and yet to jumped to the conclusion that those correct statements were an attack on Obama’s BC
Misha, you never commented on the Fake Birth Certificate of Bustamante X111, and you can see from that case the BC’s are not always correct.
In fact there was a case last week where a guy in prison got a fake BC and a fake SSN while he was in prison, of course, that to could be an Aprils Fool Joke by an april fool!
Smile again, you need fear more jokes from this atavar!
And you think “birthers” are bigots and crazy?
You think you’re the first birther to come here, spew crap, get owned, and then try to claim is was all a joke and you were fooling us from the start?
Puhleese, you’re not even the best at it we’ve had here
no, I don’t think so, and not one of the things I posted are debunked by anyone.
It is easy to cover up your biases by the failure to respond to statements other than to say they were debunked.
Debunk the Fake Birth Certificate of Bustamante Xlll I posted. And you think that because a bc is filed and certified that it is absolutely correct.
And you criticize birthers for crazy beliefs.
I person kills people in a school and the people think everyone who ones guns is a raving maniac, but one bad birth certificate means that all of the rest of them are good.
Beliefs are beliefs and not truisms.
More jackisms. You’re trolling move on crazy guy
—-
I don’t get your joke. I looked over the thread again, and all your issues were addressed, repeatedly and from several angles. No one has suggested that a birth certificate or any state record is anything but a record certified by a state and subject to the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause. You argue that one can’t be sure that an original source of information is completely accurate, but that can be said about anything. Duh. You say (in your previous comment) that you didn’t mention Obama, but indeed you did, and besides the subject of Doc’s blog entry is Taitz’s case against Obama so you shouldn’t be surprised when we address it. As for your statement about guns, I am at a loss as to how you conclude that “people think everyone who ones (sic) guns in a raving maniac.” I’m not sure anyone thinks that, but it certainly isn’t a subject that comes up on this blog. You’ve clearly amused yourself, but I don’t see that you’ve accomplished anything except shown that you can’t fake broken English worth a damn.
“Sometimes people leave comments designed to offend or outrage the reader, and invoke a firestorm of protest in response. These are the Internet trolls. Replying to them is feeding them and they will come back for more. Refusing to play their game encourages them to go away.”
And which one of my comments met your standards for an internet troll. Old man!
Every single one of them
J. D. Sue I posted the law onFF@C and asked where it said BCs are covered under FF@c
It covers Parlimentary acts , and the records and proceeding of the courts of the States.
Nothing else unless specified in the law.
There is no specificity in the law for BC’s and in fact the OIG of HHS said there was massive fraud in the issuance of BC’s
—-
No, you did not cite the applicable law. The applicable law is set forth right in the Constitution! You were told that repeatedly, but you just kept blowing it off. The only thing you cited was one rule of evidence, and the rule you picked pertained to records of legislative acts and court proceedings. Since the legislature and courts don’t maintain birth certificates, how would you expect us to point in the text to show you a non-existent reference to birth certificates. If the Constitution isn’t good enough for you, and you feel some need to see an applicable evidence rule, why don’t you look at the rule that deals with non-judicial records–28 USC 1739. I’ll send you my bill in the morning, troll. I’m done with you.
First of all, Joe…
FF@C makes no sense. There is no “Full Faith at Credit”. Full faith AND Credit is covered in the Constitution, which says the following:
Now, would you agree that a birth certificate is a record of a state? If it is not, then why is it classified as a vital record by almost every state?
Now, 28 USC 1739 says
So, it is covered under this law.
So, let me ask you this question…
How would you propose that we prove the place of birth for people? Testimonial? What about people who are 70 years old? All the people who would be able to signify them are dead. Heck, I’m 30 years old right now. Even if I got someone on their first day delivering me, they’re looking at retirement right now. Even if you figure that someone delivers only about 1 baby for every 4 hours of work, and works on average 40 hours a week, that’s 522 babies a year. Times that by 30 years, and you’re looking at approximately 15,660 babies delivered throughout their career. Do you really believe that they’ll remember every single person?
Now, how would you propose that we prove the details of our birth?
Spewtoomuchjoe doesn’t actually have any proposed solutions to his invented problems. He just wants to pretend that if one BC ever was faked then they all must be, an therefore the scary black guy in the White house needs lynchin’
He’s not even an accomplished troll, as highly as he thinks of himself.
dunstvangeet
And now you know the whole story, but you forgot to enter the facts
After the certification by the courts!
“shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or Possession by the attestation of the custodian of such records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers.”
See the problem!
Even then, it only provides that if it meets those qualifications it will be admitted or proveded, which simply means that the court accepts it as evidence, without further discussion as to the validity of the authenticity of the document, and that means it is subject to challenge by the attorneys in the court!
Few people read of the stuff!
Now if it was valid by itself as a Vital Record, why would it need verification as stated in the law by the courts?
If you’re not talking about Obama, then get the hell off this site because this is “Obama Conspiracy Theories” not “Whack the Troll.”
saynomorejoe is a troll who has nothing to add to the discussion. I suggest that everyone ignore him and he will slink away into the night.
dunstvangeet
Aye, there is that problem of identifying the person who is on the birth certificate, and that is why the OIG of HHS said that the agencys should use confirming evidence that the birth certificate is really the birth certificate of the applicant for the benefit.
But, the real way to prevent that is to print out the microfilmed copy of the filed birth certificate as those can not be altered by computer work, except, of course, by the Government programs.
Everyone in the government that uses paper documents scans them for errors that might indicate a particular document is false, but, then it allows the viewer to accept or not accept according to the viewers wishes.
And that might lead to corruption, but, of course, corruption is unknown is the USA Governmental Agencys
First of all, you’re referring to an out of state record. Obama’s birth certificate is valid in Hawaii as it stands. Some courts may want an additional certification of the copy, but we’re still talking just about certification of the copies, not the certification of the event.
But in the case of Obama, should any court actually ask for the birth certificate, which none has, there’s no question that the court in Hawaii will certify it, and we already know from 4 and a half years of listening that the birther side has no valid objection. So your comment, while technically correct, adds nothing to the discussion, nor poses any difficulty in the wildly implausible situation now that Obama would need to show anybody a birth certificate.
I will be happy to discuss Obama’s problems with this site, but , I thought , perhaps wrongly, that being an abstract discussion of birth certificates it might be possible to not arouse the ire of those who believe with all of their heart, that there is nothing at all wrong with Obama’s credentials.
Still thinking kerning is bad for Luca Smith’s Kenyan BC , but OK for Obama’s LFBC, do you?
Stll believe a typewriter ribbon can show dpi on the BC do you?
Still believe that a printer uses different sizes of DPI when printing or scanning a document, do you?
Still believe everything can be explained away by processing techniques?
I have no problem with Obama being elected, I have no problem with Obama being Black, I do have a problems with badly copied documents, which people think are the Holy Grail of Truthfulness.
I have absolutely no objection it being prima facie evidence in Hawaii, but the constant FFC for the document in the USA is wrong, unless it is certified by a Court in Hawaii with the attestations,
There has been no case lately in Hawaii and in the USA the LFBC does not meet the standards as set forth in the USA codes for FF@C for records.
And I have never thought that Obama had to produce the record, I thought it was strange that he did not want to do that, and then produced two documents that were questionable!
i think i see the problem. the constitution establishes “full faith and credit”, which even a school kid can understand. birfers argue “full faith for cretins”, which not even they understand.
It has been certified by the State Department of Health. A Court has nothing to do with it.
Furthermore, the information on it has been officially verified by the Hawai’i DoH to the State of Arizona and another State (of which I forget the name at the moment).
Remember that it is the INFORMATION that is relevant, not the medium (paper or PDF or engraved in granite even).
The INFORMATION is correct. Period. It has been certified and verified by the Official Keeper of Records. There are no ‘yabbuts’. End of story.
It has been certified by the State Department of Health. A Court has nothing to do with it.
Furthermore, the information on it has been officially verified by the Hawai’i DoH to the State of Arizona and another State (of which I forget the name at the moment).
Remember that it is the INFORMATION that is relevant, not the medium (paper or PDF or engraved in granite even).
The INFORMATION is correct. Period. There are no ‘yabbuts’. End of story.
or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers.”
See the problem?! It’s you who forgets to enter the facts.
An actual court doesn’t need to certify it, for it to be authentic. Furthermore, the United States State Department specifically accepts it as proof of citizenship for obtaining a passport.
As far as the attestitations, you can see those attestations here. In regards to Obama’s birth certificate, it reads, and I quote, “I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii Department of Health, Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar.”
You can see it here: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg
Again, you state that you don’t have a problem with it being used in Hawaii as proof of birth. The Full Faith and Credit clause then requires all other states, provided that some requirements are met, accept it as if it was in the Hawaii Courts, therefore giving the fatal flaw to your argument. The U.S. Government accepts this exact document as proof of citizenship for gaining a passport. Why wouldn’t they accept it for proof of citizenship for other reasons? And if the Federal Government accepts it as proof of citizenship, then why should state and local governments not accept it as proof of citizenship?
Answer those simple questions?
As far as your proposed situation, it would cost a whole lot more in man-power, and for no added security. It’s actually less secure, as microfilm and microfiche degrade, where computer data generally doesn’t, and easy to maintain backups incase there are things like fires.
Here’s the rough process for what the State of Hawaii goes through to print a birth certificate.
1. Look up the record on database. (5 seconds)
2. Load security paper into printer.
3. Print document
4. Stamp document with attestation.
5. Attach seal.
I could do this entire process in under a minute.
Here’s what you’d propose.
1. Look up the record on microfilm.
A. Find the appropriate microfilm roll.
B. Scroll through the records taken on this microfilm until the appropriate microfilm is found. (Takes a lot longer than what it takes a computer to look up the record)
2. Find some way to print it from antiquated technology onto security paper.
3. Stamp Document
4. Attach seal.
In reality, this process takes probably about 15 minutes.
So, you’re less efficent, for no added security, and this still doesn’t prevent the exact scenarios that you said that birth certificates could not be used as evidence of citizenship: someone lying.
Hey, Joe is writing in standard English. Guess he learned overnight.
Good boy!!
“I have absolutely no objection it being prima facie evidence in Hawaii”
Who cares? Obama has been elected in a landslide, twice. Guess you’ll have to cry in your beer. Obama will have a library, and go down in history as the first black president. He brokered an apology from Bibi to Erdogan, thus living up to the Nobel prize he was given. He extracted the US from Iraq, the worst military blunder in US history. Wait – it wasn’t a blunder. Halliburton got their paws on the oil, just like Cheney planned.
Your crowd will be a footnote, and a chapter in abnormal psychology textbooks. And conservatives refuse to denounce your crowd, which does not surprise me. After all, conservatives are trying to outlaw reproductive freedom, so why not go the full monty towards fascism? Conservatives are halfway there.
You have a heap of problems there, Joey. Too bad. You’ll have to suffer, like we suffered with 8 years of Shrub. Shrub is arguably the worst president since Franklin Pierce.
Joey has learned English. Congratulations!!
BS
No white man ever had to show his birth certificate.
Only to your mob’s twisted imagination.
And Saynomorejoe, let me give you a scenario…
You’re running for President. People state something about you, they say that you weren’t born in this country, and if you’d just release your birth certificate, this would all be solved.
So, you take your birth certificate, scan it and post it on your campaign website. You further send this scanned image to multiple news agencies, and allow everybody to see it on your campaign website. The state that you were born in says multiple times that the document you post is an image of “an official state birth certificate.” Legitimate factchecking organizations pour over the image, and note that the document is the exact document that the State Department uses to prove place of birth. You invite media to your campaign headquarters to handle and photograph the birth certificate first hand.
The people who said that you weren’t born in this country, say that it doesn’t prove a thing. That somehow despite you having enough evidence for the State Department to prove your citizenship, that somehow you can get this document without actually being born in this country. They further have psuedo-experts say that the document is forged despite the Department of Health statements that the document is legitimate. They also say that it doesn’t matter anyways, because in order to be a “natural born citizen”, you have to have 2 citizen parents. They then, despite saying that you’re ineligible no matter what you do, claim that if you just release your long-form, it’ll all go away…
So, after a while, you wish to put this all behind you, get rid of the carnival barkers (sorry to insult the great Carnival Barkers of various circuses). So, you write a letter to your state’s Department of Health asking them to violate their own rules on releasing the long-form, and giving you those copies. They comply, proving affidavits that this is legitimate. You then photocopy them for the press packets, and scan it in and put it on the official Website of the White House so everybody can see it. You then take the actual copy that the Department of Health gives you and have a press conference, giving everybody in the White House Press Corps a photocopy of it, and allowing anybody who wants to in the Press Corps to handle the original copy, with the raised seal, which at least one member of the Press Corps does. Then the state Department of Health further issues two verifications of that document.
The people who then, before even seeing the document, say that it’s a forgery. They point to several things that would be idiotic for any forger to do, but are perfectly normal for a computer to do when trying to reduce the file size. They then state that this is proof of the forgery, despite the fact that they do not have anybody who’s actually either a member of any forensic science organization saying it. They then say that even if it was true, it doesn’t prove anything, that there could be a conspiracy to defraud the public and people could have lied to file this birth certificate. They further re-state that even if everything that’s true in there, he’s not eligible anyways, because of the two-parent theory, so it actually doesn’t matter. They then state that if you’d just release one more document, it would all go away.
Tell me, after the reaction the last two times you released exactly the document that they asked for, would you bother releasing the 3rd document? Even if he does release it, I can tell you what the reaction from the birthers will be: “It’s a forgery. It doesn’t actually prove anything. And it doesn’t matter since you weren’t born of 2 citizen parents.
And Joe, let me give you one more thing…
How exactly do you propose that Obama release whatever document that he has? Do you propose that he holds it up in front of the press, allow them to photograph it, and allow them to touch it? He’s done that.
Do you propose that he scan it, and place it on either his campaign website, or White House website for all the world to see? He’s done that.
Do you propose that he has the Hawaii State Department of Health release statements saying that it’s an “official Hawaii State Birth Certificiate”, and that all the information on it is accurate to what the Hawaii Department of Health has on file? He’s done that.
Do you propose that the State Department of Health issue verifications to various officials in other states saying that the document is accurate? That’s happened.
So, the only thing that would be left is for you to believe that Obama should spend $1 billion dollars on sending every potential voter their own version of his official Hawaii State Birth Certificate.
You’re a liar.
You have a problem with all of it, otherwise you wouldn’t be here…otherwise you wouldn’t have displayed blatant racism with your recent language.
A pig with lipstick is still a pig.
No, Joe wants President Obama to personally mail him the original from 50+ years ago, so that he can examine it for signs of forgery.
LOL
Gotta love these concern trolls that think they have come up with a new angle nobody else has thought of.
—
That wouldn’t satisfy him either. He argued incessantly that since the info comes from the doctors/hospital/parents, they may have been lying and the state only recorded their lies. He cites the wrong law, and when shown the right law he reads only half of it, ignores the other half that contradicts him, and declares that it’s the rest of us who don’t read. Moreover, he suggests that we should treat the Hawaiian BC like the so-called Kenyan BC produced by Luca Smith, a convicted forger. Some people aren’t interested in rational debate or the truth, and they visit sites like this trying prove that we are as twisted as they are, making complete fools of themselves.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he feels the same distain for the 14 amendment as he does for the full faith and credit clause.
If there were kerning on Obama’s non-standard BC (the so-called LFBC) in the non-preprinted form text, I would indeed have a problem with it.
But since there is no such kerning, your question is meaningless.
Of course, some letters are printed closer together than other letters. That is not kerning, that is imperfect alignment of the type head strikes.
If the typewriter ribbon showed dpi on the BC, I would indeed have a problem with it.
But since there is no such evidence of dpi being on the paper source document, your question is meaningless.
Of course a digital scan of the paper source document does show dpi evidence, that is what digital does – breaks the image into little spots of color or no color. The DPI
If there was evidence of this happening, I might have a problem with it, given that it is technically unreasonable, even if not necessarily technically impossible.
But since there is no such evidence of either of those difficulties, your question is meaningless.
Of course there is evidence that two different resolutions are present in the computer file (the PDF) and when that file is printed out or displayed on a screen, the evidence of those differences can be seen. There is, of course, no evidence that the varying resolutions are caused by the scanner or the printer (as above, it is technically unreasonable), but there is a mountain of evidence that the very act of creating the PDF computer file includes a compression algorithm which does indeed explain the resolution differences perfectly.
‘Explained away’ is not the phrase I’d use. When there is nothing to explain, there is nothing to ‘explain away’. The only thing that needs to be explained is why you would believe the cranks that push this nonsense.
What ‘badly copied documents’ from other Presidents, or Governors, of Senators, or Mayors, or dog catchers, or next door neighbors have you questioned?
Still believe that ‘I an not a racist’ explains that away?
A challenge accepted.
\(Still believe that a printer uses different sizes of DPI when printing or scanning a document, do you?
If there was evidence of this happening, I might have a problem with it, given that it is technically unreasonable, even if not necessarily technically impossible.
But since there is no such evidence of either of those difficulties, your question is meaningless.)
Go to whitehouse.gov, pull up the bc, enlarge it 8 times, and take a look at the D in the signature of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama.
Take a look at the dpi in the D nd then take a look at the DPI in the u in the same name
Why woould the u be twice the dpi of the D?
Now take a look at the registrars certification and signature. Same DPI as the DPI in the u of the Dunham name?
How could that happen if printed out on a printer?
Now look at the comma , after Wiichita, why is that in a different dpi then the word Wichita?
I would be interested in how the printed can change dpi in a word from one letter to the other.
Educate me!
It was not a printer but rather a typewriter. People who have actually used typewriters know very well how the letters appear at inconsistent spacings, especially when typing faster than the carriage moves.
As to the twice the DPI, this is an artifact of the compression used which takes the text and reproduces it in twice the DPI than the background. The algorithm has incorrectly identified some text as background and vice versa.
I assume that you are familiar with mixed raster content and how it is handled? The document is scanned and separated in text and background. The text is handled as monochrome, the background as 8 but jpeg.
I have shown how this is a normal side effect when optimizing a PDF for size.
You can check for example here
http://thumbnails.tv.adobe.com/2011-02-17/PDFOptimizer.jpg
Note how the optimize is sampled at 300dpi and the jpeg at 150dpi.
Hope this clarifies.
PS I have looked in depth at these issues and these minor mysteries all disappear once you become familiar with the workflow.
What you are looking at is not a typewritten page. It is a computer file containing an image of a typewritten page displayed on a computer screen which is itself also pixelated. The pixelation in the file is introduced by the scanning process – its how scanning works. The different resolutions are introduced by the compression algorithms during the encoding of the scanned image as a PDF file – its how PDF encoding for optimized storage works.
Your willful ignorance is caused by a weak mind.
This is confirmed by the fact that part of the Stanley Ann Dunham Obama is reproduced in the jpeg and another part in the monochrome layer, just as mixed raster compression would do it.
Simple really. Ask me more. I bet you I can explain most any ‘mystery’, as I have studied this quite in depth.
And you are surprised that these so called ‘experts’ could not figure this out?
Which is why there will never be an indictment or warrant, the foundation for the Cold Case Posse’s arguments is flawed. You also may want to read the work by John Woodman who explains many other myths.
So what’s your next ‘concern’?
Yep. It’s called Mixed Raster compression. It works as follows. The computer scans for parts which it believes to be text and finds a bounding box that encloses the text, the text is then stored in monochrome bitmap format, most likely JBIG2 as this explains why some letters are identical. Again this is part of the compression.
The rest is rendered as an 8 bit jpeg at half the resolution. At least, that’s the standard setting in most cases.
I have even shown how the sizes of the bounding boxes of the text areas are computer generated and show evidence of an algorithmic approach, not someone manually editing the file.
Once you realize how the document was most likely created most all ‘mysteries’ resolve themselves as simple algorithmic artifacts related to the compression algorithm used.
Why the Cold Case Posse has failed to comprehend this is beyond me. But any real document expert would quickly put to rest their follies.
Which of course is why we will never see any indictment as the evidence if flawed, severely flawed.
Surprised…
Send them more money, you shall see.
Continuing the explanation!
Now take a look at the BARAK in the child’s name. Note that R in half as black as the rest of the child’s name.
Now as that name is typed in the bC how could it have a different ink color on the bc.
And have a different dpi rate in the one letter.
Now let us consider whether this is a computer produced copy or not.
Obviously not, as you can not take script from a document and do anything but produce a document that is consistent in texture, color, and style, in that what is produced is computer produced and they do not ,normally, produce inconsistency in the document.
Unless you want it to, which is always possible
If the computer has the words Barak Hussein Obama ll in it, it will all come out in the same color as it was typed, and typewriters do not change ink colors in the middle of a word.
A poster going by the moniker gsgs has finally unraveled the mystery of the rectangular objects found in the long form birth certificate. By realizing that the algorithm works in blocks of 8×8 (a typical JPEG block) he has shown how the top and right hand borders align perfectly with such 8×8 boundaries, while the left and lower borders line up with the bitmap, basically the bitmap touches these sides.
Furthermore, he has also shown how the x-ray is explained, the coloring behind the actual letters. This is again related to the 8×8 algorithm where the missing colors are assigned an average value.
While gsgs came to Obamabirthbook as someone skeptical of the rebuttals by John and others, these findings are quite relevant and required some innovative thinking.
Let me explain further. As shown before, the pdf contains 10 ‘layers’ although best called ‘objects’. 9 of these objects are monochrome bitmaps, the 10th one is a jpeg image.
So the question is: how would an algorithm decide on the extent of these bitmaps? On the lower and left hand side the borders touch the bitmap, in other words, the borders are closest to the filled bits. But the top and right hand side appear to be at a ‘random’ distance.
What gives?
gsgs realized that JPEG analyzes 8×8 blocks and these same blocks can be used to determine foreground/background segmentation. So if the analysis is indeed done in such blocks of 8×8 then can we see evidence of such. And ‘miraculously’ the top and right hand sides align with the edges of the 8×8 blocks.
This is easy to explain by an algorithm but a ‘forger’ would have to located the 8×8 boundaries and then align his bitmaps carefully.
The chance of this happening by chance is 10^-18, so an algorithm sounds quite likely.
gsgs also explains the x-ray effect and is working on understanding the halos, which I now believe to be resulting from a sharpening filter applied to edge areas. The x-ray effect is the observation that when the text bitmaps are removed, the white under the text is actually colored. By applying the same 8×8 bit logic and assigning the average color to these blank spots, gsgs has convincingly shown how the ex-ray effect is just a jpeg artifact.
So not MRC (layer based) but rather block based compression. It took me some time to realize that there are many more ways to ‘skin the cat’ and I had seen blocks as just a variant of MRC but theoretically speaking they are ‘different’ beasts. But only superficially so.
I pounded a typewriter from 1940 to 1950 and then had to type all of my reports until 1968 when the State provide computers!
And very few people could type fast enough to affect the spacing of the letters.
bent hammers are consistent in results,
And registration of carriage is seldom a problem
Improper typing causes strange things sometimes, but clerks in civil service at that time were very skilled typists.
I always required a redo of the letter if there was any strikeovers, caused by back spacing and retyping.
And, of course, you magic processing only happens on the information on the BC and does not affect the certification.
Also note that magic processing also only affects the safety paper off of the bc. doesn’t it,.
If you pile it deep enough it gets believeable.
just like Einstein!
So, your magic 8 blocks takes Barack and simple selects the R to do the magic stuff and ignores the rest of the name.
You will know the truth after we read the law!
I do not understand. The evidence of the processing is quite self evident. In fact, this explains why some of the text is found in the background jpeg, and other text in the foreground layers.
It affects the whole image. But it is nothing magic, it’s simple compression
I understand why you are not too happy that your beliefs have been shattered. But why not address my comments? The compression algorithms are well understood.
Check out MRC (Mixed Raster Compression) to learn more about how an image of text and background is best compressed.
Sorry my friend but the features you have worried about are mere algorithmic artifacts.
Yes, we all know how a type writer, especially one that has seen better days can lead to quite a problematic spacing.
We see the same on the other birth certificates as well. Again, much ado about nothing.
saynomorejoe:
Before you go any further down this path of pathos, may we please see your credentials from the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners or equivalent body?
You do have them, right? Only a fool would try to pass off an analysis of this sort without the training that such an undertaking would require. Are you a fool, SNMJ? Or will we be seeing those credentials sometime soon?
I’ve driven a car for almost that long, I guess that makes me a mechanical engineer?
i love those detailed responses about how the computer could do those things and make everything appear to be a computer caused problems.
And we ride along using our computer to post on the web and never have any problem with that sort of thing when we print out the pdf, text, pictures anything, but , it is all in the Birth Certificate processing system in the HDOH
When did you ever have a printer spit out a word with a different color in the midst of the word?
The ‘magic processing’ as you call it, and yes people out of ignorance do call sometimes that which they do not understand ‘magic’, extends to the full document.
There are 9 layers, 1 background layer, 150dpi, 8 bit JPEG encoded and 8 foreground/text monochrome bitmap layers which contain much of the text.
The halo effect for instance and the x-ray effect are both caused by the same ‘magic’ and can be easily understood once one understands the likely compression workflow that was followed.
The Cold Case Posse was quick to reject MRC but as I and others have shown, too much data points to MRC.
I believe that it borders on misconduct that the cold case posse has rejected this without much foundation.
Would be so much fun to depose the cold case posse member 🙂 But I am sure, that will never happen as there will never be any indictment or warrant that will survive the laugh test.
Just saying.
If you are interested in learning more about where the CCP has gone wrong, I encourage you to hang out here.
John Woodman also has exposed many of their flaws. No wonder they ignored him…
As Willl Rogers used to say , Show me!
Show me another bc, or pdf of anything that shows the same problems the LFBC has
A URL to it will suffice!
A signature on a document that has been copied on a printer , printed, and show two different dpi in the same word!
It’s not a problem, it’s a well known artifact of the compression used. Look at the size of the PDF, it’s extremely small, showing that compression was attempted and quite successfully. So once you understand that compression was used, you can start looking for additional evidence.
Nope, it is all in the scanning software used by the Whitehouse to compress
This was not generated by a printer but rather by a scanner which optimized. This means that some words were printed as jpeg in 8 bits and others as monochrome (1 bit) bitmaps. This has NOTHING to do with the printing process. If you were to look at the original from which this pdf was generated, you will see no such color variations.
I believe Guthrie’s photograph lays to rest some of these concerns as well.
And of course in the AP monochrome picture as well.
See http://www.wbur.org/files/2011/04/0427_obama-certificate.jpg
Yes, a side effect of the scanning/compression. On the AP document, which is not compressed, you can clearly see that there is no difference in DPI.
This is all caused by the optimization procedures when the original long form was scanned in by the Whitehouse and optimized for publication.
Simple really…
There is nothing mythical or mysterious about the two different DPI’s. The higher DPI is how monochrome bitmaps are saved (most of the text), the lower DPI the background JPEG which contains most of the background security paper and some text the algorithm could not detect properly as text.
Finding another birth certificate like this is going to be complicated by the fact that no other birth certificates have been scanned and optimized by the Whitehouse. But we can look at how common work flows indeed generate these differences in DPI’s
Love it, sure I will, but first I want someone to point out any such person who has ever qualified like you suggest that I qualify myself.
Ok, come on, who is the said person who has examined the copys and who is credentialed by the said Board.
What, you can think of any?
Why do you believe any posters, including me, if we can not demonstrate our skills and get certification!?
The approach is simple:
The document is scanned in 8×8 or 16×16 bit blocks, depending on the color variation a block is targeted as either a text /graphics block or a picture block.
The text block is then further analyzed for shape primitive extraction and the picture block is scanned with a refinement step to detect missed text.
The text/graphics are encoded using a monochrome bitmap (1-color, 1 bit), and the picture block is encoded as jpeg.
In addition to this, the analysis also finds the ‘bounding box’, that is the smallest box that first the text, given the 8×8 bit limits which explains that in addition to the main text block there are 7 other text blocks, containing the signature as well as the date stamps. Most likely these were extracted in the refinement extraction from the background picture.
Well, certification is silly, but your unfamiliarity with common compression techniques and how they can be detected does make it a bit harder to take you seriously.
But perhaps you want to respond to my analyses?
That, my friend, is the least you could do, no?
First educate me how you learned English, overnight.
I’m impressed, and want to learn. BTW, typewriters are sooo obsolete. Let go.
Show me the WMDs in Iraq. Your crowd sees a PDF on the ‘Net, and screams ‘Your papers don’t look right boy.’
The irony escapes you.
How about Dr. Neal Krawetz? He’s an actual computer forensic expert who has looked into birther claims and found them wanting.
How about the expert who basically invented the compression algorithms who said that there is nothing in the PDF that indicates that it’s a forgery?
Is that better or worse than someone who worked in a Kinkos for 2 years?
From Amazon book review
By Kevin Davidson
So why were these experts ignored and has the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse contacted these experts?
The Fogbow describes
There’s no reason that a credentialled examiner would bother, since the copies were certified by the authority, whose certification makes them authentic, by definition. The paper certified copies, together with the State of Hawaii’s declaration that the information contained in the copies matches that of the original, makes it ironclad.
The only reason to bring in a forensic document examiner, would be if there was any reason at all to suspect their validity. Since there is no reason, we have no need for a credentialed examiner.
However, birthers like you claim there are problems. If you really think there are, then you need to hire a forensic document examiner, and have the certified copies examined. NO forensic document examiner is going to bother with the pdf. No sane person would be stupid enough to think the PDF has any significance whatsoever. Only a complete moron would try to make a case for forgery with a pdf, and without the original document.
Which is why is so strange that you waste all your time here. You have no expertise, and you have no document to examine, even if you had expertise. All you have is a steaming pile of shoulda/woulda/coulda, and a pdf that only a moron would bother arguing the validity of.
Have you ever wondered why none of the birthers have bothered to hire a foresnic document examiner? Oh wait, I’m wrong. World Nut Daily did hire one, but then they fired him when he wouldn’t say what they wanted him to, and they refused to publish his results. How conveeeeeenient.
So when we argue, we’re simply taking the side of a properly established and verified document, certified AND further authenticated by the issueing authority, that is legal in every court in the country, for any identity requirement.
When you argue that the PDF doesn’t look right, you’re arguing from the position of a moron.
I don’t believe any of the non-expert posters here, except when what they say lines up with the known facts, the opinions of real experts, and the certification and authentication of the state of Hawaii.
A minor point…
Today’s copiers are essentially scanner/printers and not just making an “analog” copy. It is entirely possible some small digital effects appear on the certified copy when they copied the original to the the security paper.
In fact, here is Joe at his typewriter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQM-0kaxgmE
Love that new writing style! Miss old broken English, many times sad. Say it ain’t so Joe. Ho, ho, ho. No?
saynomore’s work is done here. all he just needs to do now is get his 1000% ironclad smoking gun proof of forgery in front of very very important vips in high positions with standing who can start getting things moving in the right direction in the next two, three, six months if they keep their big promises.
the usurper is brunt toast!
so send money.
Before asking lame, easily debunked “gotcha” questions, why don’t you, and others who are “just asking” these hard-hitting (cough) questions, actually do the research first, maybe even search the history of this very site? See above: dunst and nbc point you in the right direction.
There is nothing more ridiculous (okay, there is, but still) than someone asking such backfiring rhetorical gotcha questions.
Hmmm, where have we see this just recently?
Here we go, Romney with his Libya gotcha. The whole SNL clip is instructive, especially with birther debates in the back of one’s mind, but the 9:40 mark is where you can see exactly how the professionals ridicule such lame “gotcha” questions.
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2012/10/snl-obama-vs-romney-town-hall-debate.html
********
Here’s a link to a site that discusses that part of the transcript of the real debate if you want to see it fail on its own three feet:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/10/17/romneys-debate-libya-gotcha-question-backfires-when-obama-punches-back/
********
Here is my more modest (than SNL) rejoinder:
“Oh yeah…if the Earth is round, how come Columbus smacked into America then? Tell me that. How come no one has ever circumnavigated the planet if it’s so round, eh? Go on. Tell me. I’ve got time. I’m not going anywhere. It’s not like I can go on trip around the world or anything. Because I’ll tell you, no one even sells round-the-world airline tickets. Oh yeah, score one-two-three for the Say No More Gold Medalist!”
Or, in other words, to translate what you’re saying in all its subtlety:
“You’ve been served, Byots. Taitz-style. Oh yeah.”
Joe, you still never answered my question.
What, exactly, do you want Obama to do to prove his citizenship?
There isn’t anything. That’s boy’s papers don’t look right, so he’s got to go. Right, Joe?
Joe is probably in his late 70s, probably pushing 80. He never thought a colored boy would ever get to be president.
So, Joe?
Joe seems to have written a whole lot about paper and printing and all the forms it can take, but curiously ignores that it’s the CONTENT, the words and declarations on these supposedly forged documents that has been verified multiple times by high level authorities.
It would seem that if the Hawaiian director of health was part of a conspiracy and wanted to produce a fake birth certificate, he’d certainly have the resources available.
So the question is why all the hoopla over the form and not the content, Joe?
Why all the criticism over a piece of paper and not the official who says the content is true?
Should Joe not be worried that what he was led to believe were evidence of forgery, can be trivially explained by the compression used?
And that my friend is why there will never be an indictment as the case appears to be based on flawed ‘expert’ analysis that has sought to ignore more reasonable explanations in favor of satisfying their sponsors.
It was a conspiracy.
OK, folks, I get it! You want to believe it! And that is ok with me.
I am a reasonable person, believe it or not. So, please tell me which one of those experrs, and yes indeed they may be experts, provided the signed documents, especially as now everyone, apparently, seems to say you can not prove anythng from a pdf on the website,.
Ok, I will give you that computers will make mistakes, and that a computer may make an error in printing the document that results in the errors in the LFBC.
But, I would not expect 20 similar errors in a single page,
But I will give you that there is exists such a possiblity.\
Now will you admit that there is a possiblity that the LFBC might not be completely accurate in the facts, based upon the fact that 50% of the state registrars said that fc fraud was committed in their offices, and that means that there is a 2-1 chance that Hawaii was included in that statement. And as Hawaii allows the false production of birth certificates, for governmental reasons, and that they allow alterations to bc’s and issue late and amended bc’s , that there is an equal chance of the computer making that many mistakes on one page and the HDOH issuing a bad bc giving the chances of that happening.
Absolutely, as I am not a computer expert but just a user, but, comment sense which may in used in all of these cases, will tell you that a copier will copy what is on the paper and that errors in printing are rare, otherwise they would not be so easily accepted,.
Now , if the knibbling pin is not connected to the base rods in the rooster tail in the latest version of the rousting tools for leverage purpose in mining , you will have the same effect as 8 bit or 16 bit techinques. No?
i do not expect that you will agree with that statement as it will confuse the mind competely!
Excuses for error are excuses for errors that should never happen to a properly functioning machine.
I don’t believe that copiers and printers will make those kind of mistakes to the extent they are shown on the document in question.
Further, defenders insist that they are not errors of the machine in question, but are simply in the programming of the machine, Yeah, right!
I have never seen such dpi changing in any printed document before, but I am willing to be shown a similar occurence if you should have one on a page printed last year!
!
Misha, a person comes to your door and shows you a document that is fraught with spelling and arithmetic errors and tells you that he has something to sell you baand that the document is evidence of his ownership, and you reach into your money stash and hand him money, or do you send him on the way!
A man comes to the door and says he is a US citizen and shows you a birth certificate that is handwritten, and you accept him!
Form , function, and validity are required accuracy in documentation.
And Obama is an American Citizen by birth!
But his LFBC is disgrace in evidence!
When I first saw Joe’s post about the different resolutions (dpi) in different letters of Obama’s mother’s signature I wanted to reply to explain it, but I must say that the explanations by nbc are excellent.
Here’s the deal – I actually am an expert in compression technologies, and have worked as such an expert in legal proceedings (including one of the largest patent suits ever, dealing with JPEG coding). I don’t know what nbc’s background is, but he gives a very good explanation of what is happening with the PDF.
I’ll explain it a slightly different way, if it will help. Birthers were originally all up-in-arms about the different “layers” in the PDF – remember that? Different layers do not have to all be the same resolution or color depth, and in this case they are not. There is one layer that contains color information – and by “color” I mean both the green of the background, and pixels that were “gray” enough to not be accurately encoded as pure black or pure white. That’s the first layer in the file. This first layer was produced by the optimization/compression process, which pulls out bi-level (just black or white) sections of the image for other layers, because they can be compressed better by other algorithms. The second layer contains almost all of the typed information, and parts of the signatures – those parts that were written darkly enough to be represented well as pure black.
If you look at the layers you’ll see that the “R” in Obama’s first name, as well as the “D” in Ann Duhnam Obama’s signature are in the first layer. The second layer doesn’t have the color/grayscale information per pixel, as it’s just bi-level, but it’s at twice the resolution of the first layer. The separation into layers is a purely algorithmic process that is performed from the original scan, so that different parts of the image (color/gray or bilevel) can be compressed using algorithms that are optimized for that type of data. Obviously this is an imperfect process – a person can look at this and tell that the “R” should be bi-level, but the algorithm did not recognize it as such so that part of the image got put in the first layer.
There’s nothing sinister or even unusual about any of this. It’s just the standard way that things work. “Different DPI” and different color depths are just completely unimportant parts of the way the image compression works.
Well, humans are biased to think that related information content should be kept together. 😉
for someone who begs to be taken as some kind of authority, poor saynotojoe seems to be hung up on his strange misunderstanding of the nature of data compression. by its very purpose compression discards data and distorts information; different methods discard different data based on different rules to determine what is redundant and therefore expendable — rules that often seem counter to human intuition. it is impossible to compress anything without leaving artifacts in its wake — the inexplicable “errors” that saynotojoe rails against.
saynotojoe looks at everyday compressed data and its artifacts and sees error and intrigue and treason. he is like a child that insists there’s something not just wrong but downright sinister in seeing “HI” where he demands “Hawaii”. what happened to the “i”s and where did that “I” come from? no real american™ writes “POTUS” where honest people write “President of the United States”. where’d the “O” and “T” come from? and only an obot would be willingly deceived by someone trying to sneak both “HI” and “POTUS” past us at the same time …
impeach!
Like Willard Mitt Romney? His BC had “VOID” written all over it – remember?
I say he was born in Mexico, like his father. Was Jindal born in India? I don’t know.
So let’s apply your ‘logic’ to President Obama. His COLB, which is now the official Hawaiian birth certificate, showed him born on US soil. This was confirmed directly by newspaper articles which were published within a week or so after his birth. The Hawaiian Department of Health continued to verify and certify his birth on US soil, and on special request by President Obama, released, certified and verified his long form birth certificate which shows him born on US soil.
Now, enter the birther who looks at a highly compressed PDF of the long form birth certificate and, unable to accept the existence of the compression, infers, that there are countless problems. However, most of these problems disappear once you look at all the available evidence, and understand the possible workflow, which includes compression, JBIG2 encoding etc.
Our friend Joe claimed that there were problems with the DPI resolution, which are trivially understood by the compression algorithm. Furthermore, the fact that part of the text is correctly identified as such and part is identified as background, shows that it was unlikely done by a forger and far more likely by an imperfect algorithm. Many of the characters that failed to be recognized as text, connect to horizontal lines or other background markers.
It’s so trivial to explain most of these minor mysteries which explains why no indictments or arrest warrants will ever be filed.
I don’t believe it.
Who says?
Proof? Name the people who received bogus BCs. Links? Other than Sun Yat-Sen, in 1904.
Source? Proof? Link? Name the state registrars, and link to those statements.
I have no background in image compression but I do have the ability and patience to take the time and do the necessary research, reading to allow me to define hypotheses and find ways to test said hypotheses.
The problem with the cold case posse is that they have to prove a negative as they lack any positive evidence of a forgery. This would require them to exhaust a pretty extensive parameter space, something they have failed to do. Worse, they appear to reject MRC because they believe that MRC requires 3 layers, which is how the algorithm is typically explained. However, once one realizes that block based algorithms are far more memory efficient (important when the tiff file is 300-600 DPI), you realize that a block based segmentation explains many of the features found such as the alignment of the text blocks (8 bit boundaries) and the x-ray nature where the background bleeds through under the text.
I believe that I can explain most relevant features that the Cold Case Posse’s ‘experts’ believe are evidence of fraud as algorithmic features.
I find it therefore fascinating that they have chosen to ignore the work by John Woodman, who has identified many examples that are much better explained by regularity and chance, not ‘design’.
As such, I find it bordering on misconduct that some have ignored these uncomfortable facts, and have chosen to allow themselves to be funded by interested sources with whom they freely share their ‘confidential information’.
In my book, this does not even get close to what a real law enforcement investigation would look like.
Given the standards for criminal and even civil cases, the report written by the cold case posse, would not even pass the laugh test, let alone the Daubert requirements.
With Zullo’s latest admissions, I am convinced that the posse has clearly indicted themselves as being politically motivated.
Which is why we will never see any indictment or arrest warrant or anything coming out of this. And in the unlikely case that they can find a ‘VIP’ who is foolish enough, the case will not survive the inevitable motion to dismiss.
A computer does not make ‘errors’ it is just imperfect in detecting the text boundaries. You claim that there are ’20 similar errors’ but again, an algorithm makes no errors, it merely fails to be accurate.
Of course a human being would never have segmented the document where part of the text is part of the background layer and other text is part of the foreground layer.
A human being would not segment the text boxes on an 8 bit boundary, unlike a human which would segment it based on the smallest bounding box, or an approximation thereof. The probabilities show that such an explanation is highly unlikely.
That the CCP has failed to even consider properly the effects of compression is sufficient to indict the complete report but as John Woodman and others have shown, that’s not where their errors end.
What about the expert reports the WND has been hiding? What about the false claims made by the CCP, which have been well documented? Why did the CCP ignore the work by John Woodman and instead has tried to use ad hominems to allow them to ignore the impact of his work? Why is it that sponsors and VIP’s are made privy to ‘confidential information’ but not the public? Why is it that the work appears to be sponsored by known anti-Obama groups? Why is it that we hear only about the CCP on birther networks?
It’s too easy to claim that the media is not interested.
Yeah Joe is definitely traderjack or Jack Osborne from Amazon. Same claims about the 50% of state registrars. He’s using some report that doesn’t even name hawaii as being apart of the investigation which had to do with nonworkers creating fake birth certificates. Jack is a troll
Any amended or late filed documents would be identified as such and we know that the President’s BC was filed soon after his birth by a hospital.
Sure, Hawaii has had its problems with a particular form of birth certificates, the certificate of Hawaiian birth but we know that President Obama’s BC was not such a certificate.
This is an officially issued birth certificate, certified and verified to match the original document from which it was scanned.
The chances that the BC is somehow false is minuscule compared to understanding how most of the ‘discrepancies’ claimed by the CCP disappear once one takes into consideration some common sense premises.
1. Given the size of the document we know that extensive compression has been applied.
Let’s do a simple calculation:
600×600 dpi legal sized document – 6000×4800 dots or about 25-30 million individual dots. Now assume tiff to be 24 bits color depth, and we have 75-90 Mbytes for a scanned TIFF file. A jpeg file at 600 dpi would be about 20 Mbytes. The long form PDF is about 385 Kbytes… That requires an immense amount of compression and thus for JPEG a loss of detail and for the text component the likely use of JBIG2, which would also explain why many of the letters a pixel perfect identical, even though they are not so on the AP scan.
So let me make a prediction as to a likely workflow:
The document was scanned at 300×300 or 600×600 dpi, which is a standard setting for documents that size. Of course, the resulting TIFF file would have been far too large to upload to a website, which meant that the document was compressed. The most likely compression is JBIG2 for the text and JPEG for the background. The software most likely was based on 8×8 or 16×16 bit chunks, which significantly reduces the memory requirements for the analysis. The resulting file was subsequently ‘printed’ using Mac OS/X Quartz, which removes the metadata and rearranges the data flow, where jpeg is still used for the background while the foreground text is encoded using flate (similar to Gzip).
The use of JBIG2 explains why many of the letters are bitwise the same, even though these same letters are not exactly the same on the AP document.
Such a workflow would lead to the document as exists on the White House server without the need for any manipulation beyond the compression.
So simple really…. So elegant… And therefor totally ignored by the birthers.
And you to can see that report and expose the truth about what it says.
Goodle OIG birth certificate fraud!
The report said 50% of the state registrars said that birth certificate fraud happened in their office by their employes.
It did not say that Hawaii was one of them , as he did not name the state that had that happened.
So, to say it didn’t happen in Hawaii is just as wrong as saying it did happen.
If your next door neighbor had a 50% chance of being a thief, do you invite him into home?
if 50% of your friends are criminals, do you trust anyone of your friends.
Perhaps you would!
And I simply say that a printer set at 200 dpi will not print 600 dpi in the same word.
so simple, so elegant!
Then there are the scaling factors of 0.24 and 0.48, again easily understood. Note that the preview document itself is 72 DPI
72/0.24=300 DPI – Used for the text components
72/0.48=150 DPI – Used for JPEG background
Just as expected… The text was downsampled to 300 dpi and the jpeg to 150 DPI and then printed using Quartz at the default 72DPI.
Such elegancy…
And yet in a draft report the CCP ‘reports
In fact, the 24/48 scaling is extremely simple to explain without the need for any manipulation.
And they call themselves ‘experts’…
No but the reverse is possible. But, do you have an original printed copy of Obama’s birth certificate? You could sell that for a fortune on eBay.
I have read the report and it says nothing close to what you claim. You’re twisting what the report actually says. Nowhere does it claim that 25 states have claimed their employees have created multiple frauds. You keep throwing numbers around you can’t prove Jack. You’re trying to show that somehow some instances of fraud happening must mean that fraud happens everywhere all the time. You’re ridiculous and a troll
In the case of President Obama’s BC, the data was obtained from the original document. Now if your argument is that the original was somehow fraudulently filed, then you have a major task set out for you.
As to your 50/50 argument, this is rather foolish as the chance of finding a fraudulent certificate is certainly not 50/50.
Sorry my friend, this is not going to work, so why not address my arguments instead?
Are you upset that these minor mysteries, which have been identified as ‘evidences of fraud’ are trivially explainable?
I don’t know of any such examples. A local registrar in New Jersey was caught inserting false documents into the system. This was around 10 years ago.
As I have said before, most birth certificate fraud is committed using legitimate certificates by people not the person on the certificate. In fraudulent certificates, the main area is for delayed certificates (such as the Sun Yat-Sen certificate).
Yes, some supporting evidence would be helpful. I am looking at some reports on BC fraud and they do not appear to support our friend.
The report
But we know that President Obama’s BC is neither delayed, nor amended nor a midwife birth registration
Aha, this one is more relevant but still does not help Joe
We know that the process of copying from the original document and the certification was observed by the director who certified it. So there is no reason to suggest that any fraud was involved in this process.
So perhaps there was fraud at the time of filing. That’s always a logical possibility but there is no evidence to support this.
Our friend traderjack here is referring to this report http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf
He’s been lying about what it says all over amazon.
I see, our friend Joe has a lot of credibility to lose if he were to have to accept the facts…
Makes sense as to why he ignores my findings about the compression generated artifacts.
So sad…
No one on this site to my knowledge has ever attributed any artifact of the President’s long-form birth certificate PDF to “computer error.” Nor, in my opinion, are there any errors of any kind.
So we have the following documents:
AP jpg file monochrome 300×300 DPI – http://www.wbur.org/files/2011/04/0427_obama-certificate.jpg
Whitehouse PDF 72×72 DPI – http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Anyone can easily compare the two documents especially when the highly compress whitehouse version suggest problems. You will notice that the AP scan has none of these problems.
The other problem is that the AP document is at a much higher resolution than the whitehouse document although it is encoded in JPEG rather than JPEG for background and monochrome bitmaps for text (at twice the resolution).
The AP document is a photocopy scanned in and turned into a jpeg. I believe it was created from handouts at the White House.
Oh and Savannah Guthrie took pictures as well
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dBWb0nPzjwY/T-0OEMY0QqI/AAAAAAAAFI4/xWAkN5UIo98/s640/SavannahGuthrieObamaLongFormHUWAII.jpg
http://www.theobamafile.com/_Image1/GuthrieBC.jpg
Yes, Joe is making a ‘strawman’ argument. He confuses computer errors with imperfect algorithms. These are not errors in the sense that the computer merely executes the code, but rather misidentifications of parts of the original picture as either text or background.
These are easily understood when realizing that the algorithm is imperfect but are hard to understand from a perspective that assumes a forger.
That is correct. But you forget that the printed document was subsequently scanned and then compressed, separating the text and the background into different DPIs. It’s an artifact of the workflow.
Very simple…
It does not matter at what DPI the printer printed, but it all depends on the resampling by the algorithm which separates the picture into two parts: text and background graphics. Some words made it into the text part, others in the bavckground graphics which were sampled at half the DPI.
Simple… Does it not concern you that the CCP did not even consider this simple solution? All point to the same: that a compression algorithm was used. Once you understand this, all falls into place.
Bummer….
So explain why my observations are flawed…. So far your attempts ignore the salient part…
Just look at the AP document, no differences in DPI… It’s all an artifact of the PDF compression.
It’s so simple and elegant that is really surprises me that these ‘experts’ have failed to consider this. Instead they see algorithmic features as evidence of fraud, even when it makes no logical sense.
So far I am less than impressed by the work and I doubt that the CCP will ever admit to their follies, as they decided to fully ignore John Woodman.
I had stepped away from the issues because they had turned so stale but it seems the CCP is still peddling its flawed claims.
Shocking? I’d say, predictable…
The whole investigation appears to have ignored the simple explanations based on algorithmic features, and concluded, based on flawed and illogical premises that these show evidence of manipulation.
And yet the answer was so simple.
Compression…
They were too quick to reject this even though independent components all point to one and the same…
A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded
Many altered or counterfeit birth certificates and genuine birth certificates held by imposters may go undetected
between 85 and 90 percent of the birth certificate fraud encountered by the Immigration and Naturalization Services and Passport Services staff is the result of genuine birth certificates held by imposters
delayed, amended, and midwife birth registrations that are based on affidavits of personal knowledge, include no documentary evidence, and are not often marked or overlaid accordingly
Birth Certificates Alone do not Provide Conclusive or Reliable Proof of Identity
Even if their security is improved, birth certificates may still not be the best proof of identity. For this reason, program administrators may not want to use birth certificates at all, or use them only with other documents, as noted above
In this study, we found the nature and extent of birth certificate fraud relatively unchanged since 1988 and that major weaknesses continued to hamper the reliability of birth certificates as evidence of eligibility for program services and benefits, even though some incremental improvements had been made. We reported the same problems and weaknesses in our 1996 report.
Birth Certificate
” This inspection focuses on the processes of issuing and fraud associated with certified copies of birth certificates.
We received completed surveys from vital records registrars in each of the 50 States, and New York City, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico
Virtually everyone with whom we spoke indicated that they believe birth certificate fraud is increasing, and 34 State registrars responded in the survey that birth certificate fraud has increased in the last 10 years
A Birth Certificate is Proof Only that a Birth Occurred and was Recorded
Copies of birth certificates can be obtained from primary vital records offices and local entities by using a variety of methods. With the exception of California, all of the responding primary vital records registrars indicate birth certificates can be obtained from their offices on a “walk-in” basis. All 53 State vital records offices and local offices in 34 States also issue birth certificates in response to requests they receive in the mail.
In attempting to identify fraudulent birth certificates, SSA, public assistance, Department of Motor Vehicles, and some Immigration and Naturalization Service staff indicate their efforts to detect fraudulent birth certificates focus only on obvious alterations, such as erasures, smudges, white-out, misspelled words, offset margins, poor seals, dates that do not match, or photocopies. However, information we obtained indicates birth certificates are vulnerable to fraud beyond the obvious in the following areas.
Technological Advances Make Counterfeit Birth Certificates Easy to Create and Hard to Detect. Advances in communication (e.g., the Internet) and technologies (e.g., scanners, color printers and copiers) make it easier to obtain genuine birth certificates fraudulently or to create fraudulent birth certificates. These technological advances render the once standard methods of detecting fraudulent documents generally ineffective.
The overall concern surrounding amended registrations is similar to that of delayed registrations in that some States do not require substantial evidence to amend birth registrations and that birth certificates issued based on amended registrations are not clearly marked as having been “amended.”
Employee Background Checks – In spite of the fact that 25 State registrars say that birth certificate fraud has been committed by vital records employees in their State, only 14 States conduct background checks on vital records office employees.
Use
Now that last one is the one that Noisewater thinks i am lying about.
All of these were cut and pasted from the OIG report that KN says does not say what I say it says.
Ok the observations are flawed as you posible explanation seems to ignore one thing, If you separate the Dunham signature, and then combine them for printing you are saying that the separation was posted with a different dpi in the separation. Why? and How, and Are all of the document problems shown as having the change made in the seiparation.
Let’s see, if I remember correctly, the date stamped on the bottom for the registrar signature was separated and re-inserted , but it shows no dpi change,
the word none was split leaving the e but no change in the DPI.
Oh, so it is only when it is a questioned piece of data that the change occurs in the processing or compression.
Yes, the document does outline that Birth Certificate Fraud happens, most cases involving delayed or amended filings or midwife filings
But we know that these do not apply to President Obama’s birth filing.
Yes, there is a lot of fraudulent use of birth certificates however the report also outlines that the about 50% of the registrars reported some form of fraud by its employees. The most famous one happened in 2004 in NJ which involved a clerk fraudulently entering birth records.
However, in the case of President Obama we know that there is an actual long form birth certificate on file which was scanned and certified as accurate. So the only remaining possibility is that the document was filed fraudulently in 1961 but again, the presence of signatures, the fact that it was filed soon after the birth all make such a scenario very unlikely.
Sure, anything is possible, but that is not going to make for a criminal prosecution case.
You need more for that and the flawed arguments by the CCP about features they believe point to fraud but can be much better explained by simple algorithmic processes, makes the likelihood of anything happening virtually zero.
So far I have seen NO evidence that requires a forgery explanation. But perhaps our friend Joe can point to some?
Now remember Joe, I have already debunked several of your and the CCP’s ‘claims’. Are you really prepared to continue?
Your turn my friend.
So what? NONE of what you say has any SPECIFIC and DIRECT connection to Obama’s personal records. Therefore, your whole rant is meaningless and specious and nothing more than that. Face it, you simply lack the emotional maturity to accept that he’s the President and therefore waste your life and time whining about irrelevant “what ifs” that have NO DIRECT CONNECTION to Obama’s actual circumstances and actual records.
You’ve got nothing except an immature tantrum.
You make all these statements about the general “system” itself being imperfect…yet you’ve steadfastly REFUSED to answer how in your “perfect world” it should be done differently and how that would in fact make a difference. Because you can’t. You are simply trolling on absurdities and lack the ability to distinguish between what is possible (useless as most anything “could” in theory be possible) and what is PROBABLE and more importantly, what is likely, based on the actual specific, concrete evidence at hand.
In essance, you appear unable to distinguish between your emotional fantasy desires and how the real world works and functions around you.
Holy gesmoley, nbc. Let us face facts, shall we.
If I am a government employee and someone wants a birth certificate they can get on, and I will stick it in the file, put a computer annotation that it was file on a certain date, and that will be that.
As to it only being a single case in 2004 in NJ,. the OIG report in 1999, and since then, California had to stop issuing COLB’s and Texas had to stop, and Puerto Rico made all bc’s void and had to reissue them in 2010!
As of October 30, 2010 the United States Department of State does not accept Puerto Rican birth certificates issued prior to July 1, 2010 as primary proof of citizenship for a U.S. passport
Let me try to help you understand. The compression algorithm tries to separate text and background as they are best compressed using different approaches. Text is best compressed with JBIG2 and graphics are best compressed with JPEG. In order for the algorithm to determine what is text and what is not, it uses a variety of approaches. The most likely one is one which takes an 8×8 bit or 16×16 bit block and scans line by line, significantly reducing the memory cost. Using simple or more complex heuristics, it tries to determine what is text and what is not.
The stamps are a real problem because they appear in a different hue. The signature also is a problem as the beginning touches the boundary boxes of the form or other text, confusing the algorithm resulting in a less than optimal background
http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_Uw91icJn-go/Tbn_TL8FzEI/AAAAAAAAB2c/aP4bF4sxcos/s400/img-000.jpg
and an incomplete text http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_Uw91icJn-go/Tbn_Qhb1yDI/AAAAAAAAB10/BqRgy6chSq8/s400/img-001.png
There are also 7 additional parts, 3 of which are related to the date stamps, one to the registrar signature box which is separate from the main document, one to the word Non and two to ‘noise’.
It is extracted as a complete text block and thus presented at twice the dpi of the background
Well, it has twice the DPI of the text that remained in the background
Nope, it is that the CCP has confused the change in DPI with evidence of fraud, when in fact, anyone who would have looked into the workflow involving compression would have realized what had happened.
Look at the graphics I linked, they show how some information remains in the abckground color jpeg, while much of the text data, but not all is extracted. This results in several effects
1. The text that is separated is represented in twice the resolution compared to the text that fails to be separated
2. The text that is separated is monochrome, the text that is not separated is represented in JPEG 8 bits. Most notably one of the digits in the serial number.
You have to explain why a forger would be so sloppy… While I can explain it by simply showing how the process of compression can generate such features.
Well, you need to do something else. You need to file the original paper copy that was filed by the hospital or the midwife. And we know that this document exists and was used to create the long form certificate that was presented.
We are talking about Hawaii here. You are confusing two forms of certificate fraud… One involves clerks in the office, the other falsified or real birth certificates that are used improperly. The only possibility here is that it was fraud by clerks but this would require the fraud to have happened in 1961.
We know that that the document was filed in 1961 (newspaper announcement), we know it was filed and signed by the hospital. We know it shows President Obama born on US soil.
Now you have two options
1. The Hawaiian director is lying
2. The document was filed fraudulently in 1961
Neither one is helping your case as they are purely speculative.
Hope this clarifies…
Look at the “1” in the certificate number 1064 and then the 1 which is not separated from the background and rendered accordingly
The e in none, and the other parts of the dates are rendering in two different text blocks and both are rendered as text in the same DPI. Look at the pictures I provided you.
You can see them here…
Note which parts remain in the background (green document) and which ones are split up separately.
The text separation has two steps
1. Find the obvious text, the rest if picture
2. Refine scanning of picture and find more text regions
This explains why there are multiple text blocks, the main one was generated in the overall separation step, the remaining ones came from the refinement step of the algorithm.
Exactly as the algorithm for block separation says it works.
Because you are lying. Where does it say that the State Registrar was complicit and did the BC fraud in the report? Oh wait it’s not there? That’s what you’re trying to claim that somehow Onaka was involved in BC fraud. Notice it said there were instances. You seem to think this means 25 states’ birth certificates are all fraudulent. It’s a flawed argument you’ve made many times Jack. It was stupid when you posted it on amazon it is still stupid now. I notice Hawaii wasn’t named as one of those states. So again you’re trying to claim the BC must be a fraud based on fraud happening in some cases. It’s stupid as usual Jack
This side by side should work even better
http://visiontoamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/birth-certificate-long-form.jpg
Hope this clarifies.
So we have the director Loretta Fuddy stating that she has witnessed the copying of the certificate. We have Fukino
and
Well, yes..
Well, we know that this is not a case of a genuine birth certificate held by an imposter
We know that the document was neither amended, delayed or a midwife registraion
True, but when they come directly from the Director of the DOH of Hawaii, they are undeniable evidence of said birth and identity. The comments you are cut and pasting refer to when an agency accepts a birth certificate, it may be one fraudulently obtained. None of this applies
so we now know that the 1961 birth certificate on which the birth announcements were based, actual exists in the vaults of the DOH of Hawaii and that the information on this document shows President Obama born on US soil.
There are only two possible scenarios Joe could propose:
1. The directors of Hawaii DOH and the Registrar are all lying.
2. The 1961 document was a fraud
The latter one is unlikely given that it was submitted by the hospital and signed by the attending physician.
Now you may want to argue a conspiracy but that is not going to get you much of anything…
Our friend Joe has helped us establish that there remain only two likely scenarios, one of which can be rejected because of the existence of the 1961 document as submitted by the hospital and attested to by the attending physician, the other founded on a speculative belief that somehow two directors and the registrar of the DOH are engaged in fraudulent activities.
Neither one provides much foundation for criminal charges
Now, as to the claims by the CCP, as I have shown, their claims that show fraud are also better explained by simple algorithmic processes and not by invoking a forger.
Hence my prediction: Nothing will happen…
I could do that easily in my high school notetaking/typewriting class in the late 60’s. I still have some of the reports I typed. It isn’t rocket science. I’m sure I did it when I was pounding away on my mother’s typewriter well before that.
Maybe, but they weren’t perfect, nobody is and maternity ward registrar’s are nurses are not civil service clerks. They are nurses first and typing is way down the list of their skill set priorities.
We aren’t discussing strikeovers, you complained about ‘kerning’. Misaligned type head strikes are not kerning. Strikeovers are ugly, but if the birth event record document is readable, that is all that would (or should be) important. For the hospital registrar to spend inordinate amounts of time getting the document ‘beautiful’ is a complete waste of time. It needs to be accurate, not beautiful.
WND has confused the topic by erroneously claiming that the attending physician changed from Rodney West to David Sinclair…
What was stated
In other words, nothing to suggest from the witness that Dr West was the attending physician.
Dr Sinclair shows up on the birth certificate as the attending physician.
Surprised?
The same people who have spread ignorance about President Obama at the WND were actively participating in the so-called ‘investigation’…
Conflict of interest perhaps?….
Does this help understand the somewhat sloppy nature of the investigation where information that explains the features is ignored in favor of an accusation of forgery?
Does Sheriff Arpaio know? Or is he just an unwilling victim of what I see as shoddy research?
I encourage Saynomorejoe to submit what he believes to be the most damaging evidence against the veracity of President Obama’s long form birth certificate.
So far I have debunked at least one of his ‘claims’ but I am sure more persist…
What do you say Saynomorejoe? Are you up for it?
It gives angry and desperate birther bigots false hope and something to gnash and wail over.
That’s too bad. By peddling their work to birther friendly sites, the CCP is not doing our nation much of a favor.
Now instead, they could have involved additional ‘experts’ 🙂 John Woodman, while not a Daubert expert has provided some helpful information that would reduce the embarrassment to the CCP, but it also appears that 3 experts the WND contacted were never further contacted.
I’d really love to know what the CCP or Joe believes to be the best evidence…
First, and most important. If a computer makes a ‘mistake’ it will make the same mistake over and over again whenever confronted with the same circumstances. It will not do it wrong one time and right another time (baring a mechanical cause such as a paper clip shorting a connection or something).
Second there is no ‘error’ in the document – there is only imperfection in the conversion from physical document to computer file.
The original typewritten piece of paper is NOT pixelated, it is, more or less, continuous solid ink ‘blobs (perfection is limited by the fiber in the paper, the weave of the ribbon, the ink absorption on the ribbon, and the wear of the character slug).
Conversion of the physical document to a digital computer file includes making a choice of size of dot to use (the dpi). No matter what size dot you use, no matter how small, the translation will always, ALWAYS, be imperfect. The smaller the dot, the better the image is, and the bigger the file, but it is always imperfect.
Clearly not every part of a page needs to be stored at the same resolution. A monochrome background hardly needs to be stored at all. Small areas (say 8×8 bit grids) with much detail need more space (64bits times the color info plus boundary info) to store than the same area with little detail (say 2bits times the color info plus the boundary).
The goal of the computer algorithm that produces the computer file is not perfection. It cannot, by definition, achieve that. The goal is to produce a trade-off between size of file and high quality. Nothing more.
A really simple concept… But I am not sure Joe grasps it yet.
So look at the alignment of the 7 blocks which all align at 8-bit boundaries. The probability that this is by chance is 1 in 10^18, the chance that a forger would count out the boundaries is also quite small.
Again an algorithm performs much better.
If your point is that you don’t understand the concept of a computer algorithm compressing a digital image file and can’t or won’t get past the technical explanation then why do you insist on such an explanation? This is not a computer science course, our explanations can only go so far. At some point you need to take responsibility for your own willful ignorance on the subject. The information is there, all you have to do is genuinely want to understand it.
The salient point is this: the dpi change you are seeing is a feature of the computer FILE, not the original source document. The computer printer or monitor can only reproduce what the file contains according to the specifications inherent in that file.
If you have trouble understanding the technical explanations, perhaps you should try refocusing on what is actually important about a document: the information that is being transmitted on the document. You could then ask yourself these questions:
1) if its a fraud, what piece of information on the document is fraudulent?
2) if no piece of information on the document is fraudulent, why would they bother faking it? (and why am I being such a silly about it?)
3) if any piece of information on the document is fraudulent, then doesn’t Hawai’i have to be in on the scam?
4) if Hawai’i is in on it, why would they bother faking it?
The issues you raise are not errors. They are imperfections inherent in storing a physical document in digital bitmap form. Perfection is impossible when scanning a physical image to a bitmap, and compromises are made to achieve a good quality reproduction in as small an area as possible. Compromises mean some areas get stored in more detail (finer dpi) than others. These are not errors, they are unavoidable imperfections.
Copiers and compression algorithms are inherently imperfect. Furthermore they are programmed by HUMANS that have analyzed images and evolved storage methods over many years. The program does what its human programmer tells it to do when it is faced with a specific circumstance (do you detect a monochrome background? handle it this way, etc). It isn’t making mistakes, it is responding to the circumstance it finds in the image. The same circumstance is going to be handled the same way every time.
Realize that you might see, for example, the letter ‘p’ typed on the page in two different places, but that isn’t what the computer sees. The computer sees two color patterns, which may or may not be identical, given the vagueries of the paper fiber, the ink ribbon, the strike pressure, and the alignment within its 8×8 (or whatever) size grid. So the two ‘p’s may or may not be seen as the same circumstance by the computer and may or may not result in the same encoding on the file.
At the end of the day, the purpose of the scanning to digital and reproduction on a printer of whatever kind, is not to produce a perfect duplicate of the original document, but an acceptable facsimile. A scanner is not a counterfeiting device.
I think its probably safe to say that you have never had any interest in looking, and for a very good reason: the point of a document is to transmit information. As long as the information is transmitted effectively it doesn’t matter if it is handwritten, typed, scrawled in chalk on the sidewalk or stored on a computer database.
It is the INFORMATION that is important. Your struggles with dpi have nothing to do with the information that is being transmitted by the document, and says nothing about the source document that provided that information.
The only thing your struggle with the dpi ‘issue’ tells us is that you can’t tell the difference between a physical source document and a computer file and you have no interest in focusing on what is important about the document anyway: the information.
These points cannot be repeated enough.
nbc said: “The most likely compression is JBIG2 for the text and JPEG for the background. The software most likely was based on 8×8 or 16×16 bit chunks, which significantly reduces the memory requirements for the analysis.”
A few things FYI – nothing wrong with the meaning of what you’re saying, but if you’re going to be patient enough to debate this then there are some things to be aware of. It’s not correct to say “8×8 bit chunks” (or 16×16 bit chunks). JPEG uses 8×8 pixel (not bit) blocks. JBIG doesn’t block the image at all (nor does any bi-level compression format that I know of). I don’t think any compression format used in PDF uses 16×16 blocks (MPEG uses 16×16 blocks, but that’s not relevant here).
Anyway, I don’t read here much – if you (nbc) want to dig into the compression issues further, you can contact me with a PM on that other site that I follow for birther news and discussion.
Ouch, thanks for the correct. Duh… I meant pixel…
I believe that the compression algorithm has separated text and background by analyzing using a block algorithm. It’s not that JBIG2 is using blocks, it’s the segmentation approach. JBIG2 was used to take the monochrome text and further compress it as it can generate a dictionary of similar objects which helps understand why on the PDF so many letters appear to be exactly the same, even though on the AP document they clearly are different. The PDF itself contains 9 objects, one encoded in JPEG the other in flate, so the only evidence for JBIG2 is indirect.
I will contact you. I’d love to learn more as I think the whole issue is quite fascinating and I believe that the CCP has overlooked a much simpler explanation.
I am working on a document that will outline better my thoughts which are continuously evolving. Some may see that as a weakness of my arguments, others understand how scientific inquiry works.
Saynomorejoe said: “And I simply say that a printer set at 200 dpi will not print 600 dpi in the same word.”
Different layers in a PDF can have different resolutions (and none of the layers in the Obama BC PDF are at 200 or 600 dpi).
But what in the world does a “printer” have to do with any of this? There was a hard-copy document (the BC copied onto security paper) which was then scanned to create the PDF. The pixelation in the PDF comes from the scanning and compression process – there’s no “printer” involved, unless you’re referring to the copier that made the copy on security paper as a “printer”. But that wouldn’t have anything to do with the pixelation at all, would it?
For the record, the default scanning and printing DPIs on my home printer are not currently set the same. They can be set the same, I happened to have altered one of the settings without bothering to alter the other.
Here is a document with two different pixel sizes. The text is small pixels, the background image (chess piece) is larger pixels. The text also shows multiple examples of pixel for pixel mirror images. As if a forger took each individual letter and cut and pasted it together to make a text document.
http://www.bcs-sgai.org/ai2012/springer/ai2012_ctp_form.pdf
With due respect, G, those are the comments of the Office of the Inspector General at the time in 1999,
Those are not my statements.
Would you make the same comments to the OIG who made them.
The OIG’s comments do not address any of the scenarios that remain plausible. We know that the document was not falsified by an external source or obtained by someone other than the owner. We also know that the document was not a delayed, amended or midwife submitted document. So all we have left is that the document was somehow fraudulently submitted by someone inside.
But that requires that the document was fraudulently inserted in 1961 and there is no evidence for such and it is contradicted by the various signatures, the attending physician etc.
So all you have is that somehow various Directors and the Registrar somehow fraudulently have submitted the document.
For that there is no reasonable evidence.
Sorry my friend, what the OIG had to say has no relevance to Obama, unless you can explicitly explain what you believe did happen and we can discuss..
The devil is in the details, not the quote mining…. that you are now hiding behind the OIG and refuse to make coherent arguments only serves to undermine your position once again.
I appreciate the effort though…
Can we expect you to retract some of your foolish assertions about DPI now that we understand how they were generated?
Again, with due respect, ABC, the word dunham is all text , is it not? or do you claim that the D was separated in put in the background, and then came back at a separate DPI process?
Why would the computer take the word apart, it , and Barack, at the top of the page and change the procedure for those two words?
Oh, you think it was done and you don’t know why the computer would do that. Neither do I!
Stanley Ann D are all part of the background, and are rendered in half the DPI compared to the text unham which was correctly separated as ‘text’. Although one may argue if the signature should be part of the picture of the text, the algorithm separated the two, and the background was sampled at half the DPI of the text.
The Stanley Ann D components are touching the text component which likely confused the interpretation. unham was free from touching on boundaries
Your ignorance however is no measure for the ignorance of others, we have already established that much I believe.
Look at the “Ukelele” signature which touches the bottom and therefor is rendered not as text but as part of the picture. The same with David A Sinclair. All the text which inadvertently is rendered as a picture touches some line or component.
Simple really.
I thought you’d never ask. Now that you know why, what is your next excuse? Run away?
And can you explain why a forger would so haphazardly separate the two into two components?
That does not make sense at all.
And why do we not see the same effect in the AP handout? Because of the compression algorithm of course. It’s so simple.
You must have lived a different life than I have.
You want to create a fake document in the government, you get the form , fill it out, stamp it in as received, take it to the files and place it in order.
One of my comrades got fired when he got caught doing that!
I did some demonstrations of it, where I filed a claim for the name of Justin Case Offraud, and got it into the files to show that it was possible.
But that , ABC , was 40 years ago, and they may have tightened up today.
The same happens in Barack btw in block 1a. The R is taken as part of the background, rendered at half the resolution and in 8 bit colors, the rest is monochrome and at twice the resolution. The exact reason why this R was somehow captured as background is somewhat puzzling, likely because its left side is touching the A but without knowing the exact algorithm, it will be hard to explain these minor mysteries. Same with the S in Stanley
What is your explanation 🙂 Why would a forger render part of the name as part of the background and another part of the name as part of the text? It defies logic does it not?
But it was filed in 1961, that we know for sure. So now the question becomes, how were the signatures forged? Your overly simplistic workflow ignores the simple facts of the matter.
Good for you but again, no relevance to this instance where we have a document we know was filed in 1961 by any measure.
So give me the specific details how you believe this was done and we can determine if there is any support for your beliefs.
Specifics, not possibilities, plausibilities… Big difference….
Details, show us the details. So far you have nothing more than fanciful speculation
Remember the burden of proof 🙂
Unverifiable stories have no relevance as to what really did happen. Surely you understand this.
Did I say Onaka was lying, No! I did not say Onaka did anything wrong, because I do not KNOW that he did!
If the OIG said, and you saw it in the posting I made ,”Employee Background Checks – In spite of the fact that 25 State registrars say that birth certificate fraud has been committed by vital records employees in their State, only 14 States conduct background checks on vital records office employees ”
That means that one half of the State Registrars said the birth certificate fraud had been committed by vital records office employees, and it does not eliminate or include any named states or registrars.
You are blinded by something if you can not even believe an Inspector General!
No, you are blinded because you have to show that the findings in the report have any relevance.
Show us the likely scenario, not just that someone committed fraud.
We know that a 1961 document exists, and that it was copied according to procedures, witnessed by the Director.
So what exactly is your scenario? That somehow a fraudulent document was inserted? When, how, by whom?
Lacking such, your assertions will never amount to anything actionable.
Without details, you have nothing. Which is exactly where the CCP will fail.
Geez, folks, common sense helps.
The Hospital Registrar does not type the documents, the clerks do that! The clerks type documents the Registrar is supposed ot ensure that they are accurate.
in fact , if you even thought about it you would realize it is supposed to be complete when the doctor attests to the information!
TRUISM iF A DOCUMENT IS FORGED YOU CAN NOT TRUST ANY INFORMATION ON IT!
That statement has nothing at all to do with the Obama LFBC as that can not be proved true or false without comparasion to the original document, and I believe that every one believes that is a correct statement.
Totally irrelevant details.
Yes the document signed by the doctor does make for a conundrum for you does it not…
But the original document is what was used for the LFBC so what now? Sorry my friend but you are moving further and further away from the CCP case. I do not blame you because there is no foundation for their claims. But if you are arguing that somehow the document was forged, you need to provide some evidence. Without such, you are never going to get to see the original document which was used to create the document that was turned into a PDF by the White House.
You have to prove guilt, we do not have to prove innocence… Touch asymmetry really.
We have a copy of the original document, certified by the DOH of HI, which under any legal standard is sufficient.
Back to the drawing boards? I am glad to hear you retreat though. No reason to maintain an untenable position.
The problem is that you have no evidence that anything on the document is a fraud.
Tough reality… Read up on the burden of proof and the federal rules of evidence.
Good luck.
You do not know the 1961 document exists! You know that something was presented that was declared to be a copy of a document on file in the HDOH,
You do not know what is on the document , en toto, as you have not seen it.
You also know that OJ did not kill his wife, because the jury said he didn’t.
Accept the fact that sometimes what is presented to you is , or may not be , the truth!
Now , when we go back to Ron Polland, nasty change of subject, isn’t it?
He presented evidence that the Certification of Live Birth used by the DNC was something that he created and was posted on his picture server.
But, everyone believes it is a real Certification of Live Birth
You do not have to believe anyone, but realize that crooks are on both sides of the political spectrum
The computer didn’t ‘take the word apart’ because the computer didn’t recognize words. The computer recognized color patterns. The algorithm determined that the best way to store part of what you and I see is a word was with the background and the other part of that word with the foreground. The background and the foreground are stored at different resolutions.
But the computer did not split a word; it split a color pattern.
It has been explained to you several times exactly how it was done. By both NBC and Dr. Blue. It all comes back to your willful ignorance.
We do know that a 1961 document exists as the birth was announced in the newspapers. Now you may argue that I do not know if the document that exists right now is the same one as was filed in 1961 but again, the burden of proof places a high demand on you. The document fits the range of numbers, it is signed by the appropriate people.
Of course I have, it is on the website at the White House.
Red herring alert.
Always, the skeptic in me always presumes this but so far I have no reason to doubt the facts as presented.
Not really
There is no evidence that
PollardPolland created this document. My goodness sakes, you are so gullible.The document is certified, verified has the signature and requisite seal and is printed on the security paper.
Sorry my friend… The musings of a wannabe ‘expert’ do not matter here.
No wonder.
So on the one hand we have
PollardPolland whose claims have been rejected by quite a few experts. So you want to believe the hearsay from a pseudonym but you fail to give credibility to the actual evidence that shows that not only the COLB matches the LFBC but also how the data was confirmed by the DOH of HI.Now you may surely invoke the ‘conspiracy’ argument but that requires a bit more than just pure wishful thinking.
You are getting further and further away from probable cause, not that you were ever close but you do realize that you are retreating with every posting you make?
A good choice btw.
Joe, a couple of questions for you…
The United States State Department accepts the Certification of Live Birth from the Hawaii Department of Health as proof of citizenship. So, why would the Federal Government not accept it when they already do accept it as proof of citizenship…
And you say that we can’t accept the birth certificates for proof of citizenship. What is your alternative? In your perfect world, how would anybody go about proving their citizenship?
Well give him some time. These are troublesome concepts to someone who has taken the word of the CCP on faith alone. I can understand his confusion…
It’s a lot to have to take in
Excellent question. But Joe is not interested in logic as much as speculation without explaining the details.
It could have happened…
That’s the extent of his ‘claims’ at this moment.
But give him some time to formulate something relevant. Who knows…
And you don’t know that you were ever born. You only know a baby was handed to your parents. As with the lack of relevance in your equivocations, that philosophical issue has nothing to do with whether or not you personally were delivered by a stork.
Your arguments seem to repeatedly return to the brilliant insight that people lie. How did we ever miss that? Thank you for that wisdom.
ROTFL, better said that I ever could…
Why would a forger take a word apart, or do any of the hundreds of detailed counterintuitive things that the PDF optimization algorithm did?
You make a huge leap from “I don’t understand” to “it’s a fake.” One can explain why a computer algorithm produced the long form PDF, but one cannot explain why a human would do things that makes his own job near impossible, and creates confusion in someone who examines the document in detail.
The more crazy stuff you come up with, the less likely that the document is a forgery.
The name Barack appears twice on the BC, why did the forger put one “R” on the background layer and one “R” on a text layer.
Here is the picture taken by Savanah Guthrie.
http://pics.lockerz.com/s/96540937
Look at the name “BARACK” in the first line, the “R” is clearly fainter then the rest of the letters in the name. But look at the second “BARACK” in the father’s name, it is not faint.
Is that why the computer software separated that “R” into the background?
If on a manual typewritter you do not strike one of the keys hard enough will the letter on the page be fainter?
Beat me to it.
Excellent observation…
In Joe’s world, anyone applying for a U.S. passport would of course have to produce a birth certificate. Then the State Department would dispatch a forensic documents examiner to the agency which issued the birth certificate and examine the original document. Of course, even if that document is authenticated we have no way of knowing with 100% certainty that the information contained in it is accurate, so the documents examiner then has to go to the hospital (assuming a hospital birth) and examine those records. It also would be helpful to take sworn statements from the attending physician and nurses. And then there should be DNA testing to confirm that the parents listed on the birth certificate are the real parents.
Granted, this would be somewhat expensive. It would raise the cost of applying for a passport from $110 to $10,000 or so, but I’m sure that we can all agree that it would be a small price to pay in order to put Joe’s concerns to rest..
You say all sorts of contradicting things Jack how do you ever keep up? No it means there have been instances in 25 states (Hawaii wasn’t one of them). This is over the span of the investigation. Do you know how many vital records employees there are? You’re trying to make this into a 50/50 chance when it’s less than 1%. I’m not blinded by anything, you’re making claims that don’t stack up to reality.
Jack is a known troll which is why he changed his name on here from Traderjack. Same arguments, same nonsense. How exactly would jackie jokers go about proving himself eligible for the presidency?
Oh, you guys handle the details splendidly…
I do believe so as our friend Joe has gone a little silent on the merits of the MCCCP’s ‘claims’ and is now regressing to the ‘well it may still be fake’ argument, ignoring the obvious asymmetry in the burden of proof.
Soon, I predict, the argument will become Vatellian…
Yes , you have evidence that Hawaii was NOT one of them?
How could you have as the OIG did not specify which ones of them reported that!
The Registrars said that their employees had committed fraud in BC’s in their office!
They made no statements as to how many employees,
They were making reference to their office, and not their employees.
If you have a crook in your office committing fraud then your office is suspect!
Not all of your employees.
I have gone silent on some things as I am an old man and not paid to post on any sites.
I have other things to do, but , I do like to make time to correct some of the thoughts of others.
I have numerous names on the web, and choose which ones to use when I sign in!
the passport office will not blindly accept a birth certificate, as the birth certificate must be accompanied with supporting documents,
This old man always knew that none of his birth family could ever run for president as the parents were one NBC and one naturalized by marriage, which barred eligiblity for Presidency!
Didn’t you know that?
I am amazed that people really believe this sort of stuff.
I take my son’s birth certificate into the Passport office, and present a picture of myself, and then get a passport in my name?
The clerks don’t notice that I am 30 years older than my son would be and I have a different SSN?
The birth certificate has to be confirmed to be that of the person presenting it to the office.
Look up the darn requirements of applying for a passport
You must submit Form DS-11 and the additional required documentation in person at an Acceptance Facility or Passport Agency. Form DS-11 may not be submitted by mail
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/79955.pdf
http://www.asqde.org/SRLines/SandraRLines.htm
“I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.” Sandra Ramsey Lines summary is also posted at U. S. Law Blog
And a copy of the seal on the LFBC compared to a real seal
http://theobamafile.com/_images/COLBOfficialVsObama.bmp
What you’re saying is generally not true. When applying for a passport, there are two things one has to prove, one’s citizenship and one’s identity. In most all situations (except for delayed certificates and some special situations in California and Texas) the birth certificate is the sole document required for proof of citizenship.
Of course, having a birth certificate does not say who you are, and for that an identity document, such as a driver’s license, is required.
I’m not paid either. What’s your point?
Lines is saying, as a professional document examiner, that one needs the paper document to authenticate. No professional document examiner has examined the COLB.
However, the State of Hawaii has made numerous official statements that support every detail of the COLB and the long form (certifications to the states of Kansas and Arizona). That can be relied upon.
Considering that Hawaii wasn’t specified as being one of them in the report I’d say you have nothing to run on. Even your claim about it being 50/50 is dead wrong. Have you ever been right in your life Jack? Sorry but no one crook in the office who later got fired doesn’t make your office suspect especially since the investigation was over a period of time. Again you have nothing to support your claims but conjecture.
And I repeat, when I scanned my own birth certificate using Adobe Acrobat (which also does a form of MRC compression), it broke the signature into separate layers also.
You were traderjack here before. You change your name anytime people realize what a fool you’ve made of yourself. So Jack how would you prove yourself eligible for the Presidency? There was no barrier for eligibility for Obama’s son. Just as there was no barrier for the son of William Arthur.
Doc I also had the same problem. Irey would complain about supposed different fonts in my document.
So? Are you saying your birth certificate is a fraud? What has this to do with the President’s birth certificate? It is beyond meaningless to merely say fraud exists.
How do you know that the “real seal” is real? Because someone on the internet told you it was?
And why are you looking at the “real seal” straight on but the other one at a steep angle?
Remember what Sandra Ramsey Lines said you have to look at the paper document not images on the internet.
BTW, what Lines said is what people here have been trying to tell you, the image on the internet is not the certified copy of the BC,. The document used to make the pdf is certified copy. What did Lines say about that?
In both images, the letters, circles, and emblem are made of dots and dashes.
In both images, there is the following text: “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and “STATE of HAWAII” (though parts of the text are obscured in both images.
In both images (from outside to in), there is a double outer ring, text going in a ring, a single inner ring, and the state seal in the center.
Even if we assume that the Department of Health only possesses one seal, it needs to be replaced every few years as it gets worn out. Any subtle differences can be explained by a new seal (the exact image isn’t proscribed by law, just the basic required elements).
And the true motives of racism and bigotry oozing out is only a matter of time.
April 9th, 2012:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/04/zee-big-lie/
Um, you’ve obviously never had a U.S. passport, I have one. And the only thing that I presented to prove my citizenship was a birth certificate. I presented evidence of my identity, but the only thing that I presented to prove my citizenship was my computer printout birth certificate, which had no more information than what Obama’s birth certificate did. A birth certificate is not proof of identity. It is proof that a birth occurred at a paticular place.
Are you saying that Obama is using someone else’s birth certificate? Are you saying that there was a Barack Obama born in Hawaii, and the President is not him?
So, my question is the following. The United States State Department accepts the birth certificate as proof of citizenship, then why would the Federal Government reject the birth certificate as proof of citizenship for another reason? You still haven’t answered that question.
You also never addressed my second question. If the birth certificate is not reliable to prove citizenship, then what would you propose? How, in your perfect world, would you prove that you’re a citizen?
Oh, and the Hawaii Department of Health on the Obama Birth Certificate,
“It’s an official Hawaii State Birth Certificate.”
You forger you…
Well, duh… of course the copy of the LFBC or COLB cannot be relied upon as authentic by itself, which is why the certification and verification of the data are so important. The photos made by factcheck show the full document, including the raised seal.
The LFBC was fully certified and verified as accurate by the DOH.
So why are these fools relying on these copies to try to debunk their veracity? Could you explain that to me.
ROTFL
Such a lovely two edged sword.
Remember that all the data on these forms have been verified and certified by the DOH…
So that’s the best you can do?
Has it occurred to you that it is time to correct some of your own thoughts? As to being paid, I doubt that anyone on this site is being paid, I for sure am not.
You have gone quiet because you do not like what you heard. Poor old soul… Misled by his ignorance and hatred of our President.
Yes indeed. Why is Joe ignoring these facts? And why is he relying on people looking at the copies to determine the authenticity of the originals?…
Hilarious… Seems to me Joe has run out of arguments…
But will he admit to his follies?… Unlikely.
Shocking I tell you, shocking…
He clearly has no ability to learn from his mistakes.
What a sad old man he has become, full of hate and ignorance.
Now if he could only correct himself whenever he has been shown to be wrong, but that would be quite some task…
Reminds me of James Stockdale in that presidential debate back in 1992, saying, “I’ve run out of ammunition.”
You’re pushing 80, and you’re still licking your wounds. Some life.
A crank theory invented by Leo Donofrio, a third rate lawyer and fifth rate poker player.
No
You’re pushing 80. I’m not paid, either.
I’m here to confront smears. I am happy Obama was elected twice. I vote Democratic to prevent the States from being turned into a theocracy.
I vote Democratic because I believe in the 1st Amendment, reproductive freedom, universal healthcare, and there is a scientific explanation for everything. Healthcare is a right, not a privilege.
And we know that Obama has a passport, so it follows that he provided evidence of both his citizenship and his identity.
http://images.politico.com/global//blogs/POTUS_Passport_Enhanced.jpg
Some people may remember a poster by the name gsgs, his posting style was somewhat confusing, however he has done an incredible amount of work researching some of the PDF artifacts and provided a wealth of information that helps us establish a likely workflow that led to the created of the PDF from the scanned image.
In the next few weeks, I hope to work my way through some of his analysis, and combine it with my findings as well as those of John Woodman and others, to show how most of these ‘indicators’ can be much better explained through algorithmic processes than by appealing to a forger.
Joe (traderjack) has encouraged me to expose the many flaws in the cold case posse’s arguments.
I have not run from the arguments, I have other things to do.
Now to get back to the argument, If the procession and compressing do those sort of thimgs to the documents., take a look at the scriped document on this page and show me the different compression artifacts and the dpi changes in the middle of the word.
Ok, now if the HDOH was producing a document do you think it woud have a bunch of apparent errors in it.
And if the HDOH did not do it, then who did?
Oh, the menial serfs in the press office who don’t know how to use computers, or the lawyers who provided them to the press office.
Oh, it doesn’t make any difference because we know it was done in the compression as there is no other reasonable explaination of the problems.
Or perhaps it was the NYTimes, or Daily Kos, because HDOH would not let such a thing out of their hands with those kind of mistakes.
And I am not pushing eighty in the slightest, as I have passd that decade of my life.
one more thing,
I am immune to characterisations of my name , persona, or anything else as I was in the USN where everyone calls each other rude things, but I try to respond to rudeness with more rudeness.
Bring it on , folks , let us see how childish you can be!
I encourage you to attack every single on of the positions of anyone who wants to comment on the LFBC, and I wish you luck.
There has never been a statement from the HDOH that confirms the raised seal on the Fact Check BC.
the Fact Check BC does not have the required stars on the side of the seal.
the Fact Check seal does not have the word Hawaii on the lower edge of the seal.
And the Seal has been the same since the HDOH has been created.
What required stars? Where are you getting your information from? Some random birther site.
Yes the HDOH has confirmed the content of the birth certificate. They say it’s legit you got nothing to go on.
You should be enjoying your later years, not licking your wounds.
This is not childish. It’s central to my beliefs:
Professor de Queiroz is one of the developers of the mixed raster content compression standard. He worked for Xerox in the imagining department for a number of years and holds a number of patents on various imaging standards. He is a recognized international expert on computer imaging.
http://image.unb.br/queiroz/
Here is what he says about the artifacts in the White House pdf,
“In summary I can only say I see much stronger signs of common MRC algorithmic processing of the image rather than some intentional manipulation.”
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/09/genuine-world-class-computer-expert-evaluates-obamas-birth-certificate-pdf/
Huh? We see how a extremely compressed documents show all the evidence of such, including the separation of the document into text and background, where the algorithm has missed a few components because they ‘touch’ other boundaries and were not identified as separate text. There is just no reasonable forgery explanation for this and the compression explains it perfectly
It was a copy of the original, and these are not ‘errors’ but rather errors in the compression algorithm used by the White House. In the original document there is no evidence of DPI changes.
The person in the White House who scanned the document and compressed it to under 400kb
Let me carefully explain the steps because you still seem to not understand the relevant components
President Obama asks for a certified copy of the long form birth certificate
The DOH copies the long form birth certificate onto security paper, adds the required signature and date and impresses it with the Hawaiian Seal.
The document is sent to the white house via a lawyer who specially flies to Hawaii.
The document is scanned and highly compressed to allow it to be made available on the web.
The document is photocopied and provided as a handout.
The document is observed by Savannah Guthrie who takes pictures and mentions the raised seal.
The PDF document is highly compressed, you can see several JPEG artifacts such as ghosting, and blocking, all pointing to extreme JPEG compression. We also see extreme compression in the text which has been down sampled.
When compared to the handout, we see that many of the artifacts are not present on the higher resolution handout. The same with the lower resolution photograph taken by Guthrie.
So we see all the evidence of compression generated artifacts although they do not appear on the photocopied version.
Of course, there is no reasonable explanation as to why a forger would encode part of the document in monochrome bitmaps and other parts in JPEG compressed 8 bit bitmaps.
No logical reason at all.
Ah, you are now taking the words of others as somehow relevant. Note that initially the claim was that there was no seal, now we know that there was a seal, although some have argued that the seal is not the official one. Given the fact that the document came from the DOH, was signed by the DOH, the presence of the seal logically leads to but one conclusion.
Furthermore, the DOH has verified almost every single bit of the document. The claim that the seal somehow does not match is based on wishful thinking at best.
I do notice how you carelessly repeat what you have read on blogs, without doing the necessary work.
As to the seal, I was one of the first ones to detect the seal on the picture released by the white house. It’s vague but by playing with contrast etc, you can reproduce the outline of the seal.
Sorry my friend. You have again allowed yourself to be misled.
As to the stars and the missing hawaii
http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/real-seal.jpg
I find it fascinating how our friend Joe/Traderjack once again has been shown to be confused about the facts.
That he still is unwilling to abandon the DPI change arguments is fascinating to me as I have shown how such is a simple compression artifact and that there is no credible reason why a forger would go through the trouble of using dual encodings for these letters.
None at all…
Perhaps Joe could finally show something that he is willing to defend as good evidence of ‘fraud’…
Give it a try Joe, you may even recycle the rebutted claims by the many ill informed birther sites but of course, you will have to defend them against my critique.
Well Joe? I noticed you are slowing down now that things are not going that well anymore…
For the seal see
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=16590
♪ ♫ Hit the road Jack ♪ ♫
My favorite is “6c. Name of Hospital or Institution (If not in hospital or institution, give street address)”.
The forger didn’t just copy that line from another birth certificate.
The forger put “6c. N f H al I (If h al add ” on the background layer and ” ame o ospit or nstitution not in ospit or institution, give street ress)” on a text layer.
And guys like Saynomorejoe thinks that makes logical sense.
Great example… Yes, to appeal to a forger requires one to abandon reason and logic, while from a perspective of an algorithm, it just did what it was programmed to do. IIRC all the letters that hit the horizontal line above or which attached to such letters remained on the picture, the others became text
Have you thought about contacting Professor de Queiroz about MRC? He is pretty approachable considering he doesn’t have anything to gain by being involved.
The HDOH produced the PHYSICAL PAPER DOCUMENT. The PAPER DOCUMENT is the Birth Certificate. It does not contain these so-called ‘apparent errors’ you speak of – it is not a digital image, it is a photocopy of the source birth record.
The PDF is an DIGITAL IMAGE of the paper document which was created by the White House.
The creation of the DIGITAL IMAGE involves ‘pixelation’. Choosing the size of the pixels is part of the process. Smart people have built ‘smart algorithms’ that can ‘decide’ which color patterns on a physical page need to be high resolution and which color patterns on a physical page can be low resolution.
The two document are not the same. The physical paper document from the HDOH is a Birth Certificate. The PDF is not a birth certificate, it is an image of a birth certificate. The important part about both ‘documents’ is the information they contain. That information has been certified and verified by the HDOH many times.
It is tiresome for you to pretend that you do not understand the difference.
This has been explained to your countless times. You are being ridiculous, and posting just to see your self in print and to irritate people. You are a troll.
Please go somewhere else and get a life in the process.
Stars are not required (and they don’t appear on the “real seal”).
The Fact Check seal does have the word “Hawaii” on the lower edge of the seal. You can see it at the top of the picture. The “real seal” is a lo-res scan (probably using a hand-held scanner) of the obverse side that has been rotated about 5 degrees so that the bottom of the seal is at the bottom of the page. The Fact Check seal is a hi-res digital picture taken at an oblique angle of the reverse side with the bottom of the seal at the left-hand side of the page (the contrast has also been altered from the Fact Check original to get the seal to stand out more). To get the two pictures to line up, the picture of the Fact Check seal has to be mirrored and rotated 90 degrees.
While the Great Seal of the State of Hawai’i may not have changed since the DoH was created, the embossing seal used to create the raised seals on certified documents assuredly has been. Here’s some excerpts of a requisition form for a heavy duty embosser (similar to the kind used by government agencies), made by a community college in California. First, why they need it:
Note that the LOGO Dies are the engraved metal discs that create the raised seal, the part that actually touches the paper. These were wearing out after 1,500 to 1,800 certificates. Now what they got, and the anticipated lifespan.
While the unit itself should up to 7 centuries(!) at current usage, they are still anticipating having to replace the LOGO Dies every few years. So even though they’re getting a heavy duty embosser, the Logo Dies still have a limited life, call it 5,000 to be conservative.
Let’s be even more conservative and assume that the DoH, with the number of certificates they have to produce, gets the most durable Logo Dies available, lasting twice as long as the heavy duty ones. That is, 10,000 certificates sealed before replacement.
How long until a new Logo Die has to be purchased? To answer that, we need to estimate the number of certificates issued per year. The most conservative estimate is one certificate per vital event (birth or death). This almost certainly underestimates the number of certificates issued, as most people end up getting multiple certified copies of their birth certificate, and you need 5-10 copies of a death certificate for most adults.
According to the HDoH Vital Statistics page, there are about 18,500 births, 9,500 deaths, and 1,000 stillbirths per year. That equals 29,000 vital events per year.
If our very conservative assumptions hold true, the HDoH would have to be wearing out Logo Dies at a rate of three per year. The real number is probably closer to 5-8 per year. Any minor variances in design can thus be attributed to using Logo Dies from different lots.
Thanks, nbc. This hi-res picture is much more illuminating. The date on it is Sep 9, 2002, nearly 7 years before the Obama COLB. HDoH had to have gone through dozens of Dies in the interim.
So nothing specific? So far I have laid to rest quite a few of them. Anything particular you would like to pursue?
Doubt it, given the intellectual “beating” you have received last time you tried.
The official seal of the department of health
shall be circular in shape, two and one-fourth inches
in diameter. At the curve on the top portion there
shall be the words “DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and at the
curve on the bottom portion there shall be the words
“STATE OF HAWAII.” At the curve on each side portion
shall be a star. In the center of the seal shall be
the Caduceus, a winged rod entwined with two serpents,
which has long been recognized as a universal symbol
of medicine. The Caduceus shall be encircled by an
indentation, which shall separate it from the words
“DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH” and “STATE OF HAWAII.” For
illustrative purposes, a black and white drawing of
the official seal is attached at the end of this
section as Exhibit “A,” titled “Seal of the Department
of Health,” and dated November 1, 1988,
Note it says there will be a star on each side of the seal!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1lGFYYNkw_o/TPtWyruGx-I/AAAAAAAACN0/dqB-d0n08Gw/s400/embossedseal1.jpg
And there you will see the HDOH seal that looks nothing like the FactCheck seal
Is that the correct Seal or is that not the correct seal?
I’ve often wondered why birthers don’t just claim the PDF was forged using some automated FBI software taking bits and pieces automatically from lots of source birth certificates. This would “refute” your claim no human forger would work like this.
Well, the answer is simple: the use of such advanced software would rule out Obama as the forger – something birthers absolutely cannot tolerate as an end result.
Let me give you an example alternate birther theory:
1. The original BC contains some information that is “embarrassing” to Obama and might (have) hurt his re-election chances (e.g. like the actual birther theory that Obama was the son of Dunham sr. and a prostitute).
2. Obama himself was never told this.
3. Someone from his staff discovered this and decided to “protect” Obama and his political career by having the FBI forge the BC.
This scenario is at least as possible as the different actual birther theories but it would not result in the consequences the birthers desire (Obama being hanged for treason and his presidency voided as if it had never happened).
The fact that not a single birther has ever proffered this theory (although it’s not far-fetched from a conspiracist point of view) proves again that they are only interested in theories that end up with hanging the black guy.
How do you know that the paper document did not have those defects?
You have never seen the original paper documents that were provided to the President, have you?
As everyone agrees what was provided were copies of the document , and the copies were not made by the HDOH!
So, now you are agreeing the the LFBC does not faithfully reproduce the photo copy that the HDOH produced for the President, and, if it was not faithfully reproduced how can you trust it?
And it could not have been a photocopy at all because it was printed on safety paper, which is supposed to stop the ability to reproduce the document
I might agree with some of your statements but I dispute the idea that Obama was the forger, as I don’t believe he had the capabilties to do that
the PDF is a digital image, agreed! But the passed out LFBC were not digital images by rather printed documents produced on a scanner, or a computer.
when they go through the printer the printer prints them out at the dpi set by the operator and does not change the dpi during the printing process.
If I am wrong tell me how the dpi’s change in the middle of a word when it is being printed out!
Because the paper document is not a computer file. It is a physical piece of paper.
Also, because I don’t give a crap.
It is the INFORMATION on the document that is important and it has been verified many times by the official record keeper.
Stop putting words into my mouth. I am agreeing no such thing.
The LFBC is ‘the photo copy that the HDOH produced for the President’. The HDoH photocopied the original paper birth event document onto security paper and certified the resultant paper document. That result is the LFBC, a physical piece of paper.
What I am saying is that the Computer File is NOT the LFBC, it is an digital image of the LFBC and the process of creating that digital image necessarily introduces the imperfections you are discussing.
Taking photocopies of ‘some’ security paper produces indications that it is a photocopy, not an original (see Mitt Romney’s document). Not all security papers behave this way.
Furthermore, taking a photocopy OF a security paper is not the same as photocopying ONTO a security paper. The HDoH photocopied a NON-SECURE document ONTO security paper.
It didn’t. You have never seen one of those physical documents that were ‘handed out’. You have only ever seen images from the internet, so you simply don’t know what you are talking about.
And furthermore, the printer will print a page according to the print instructions given to it. If the print stream has portions of the page at one resolution and another part of the page at another resolution, that is exactly what the printer will do.
Joe, you never answered any of my questions…
1. How would you have Obama release this document? Be specific. What exactly should he do? Should he show it to the White House Press Corps, and let them touch it? Should he scan it in, and put it on the website for everybody to see? What exactly should he do?
2. Now, let’s make an assumption that you’re right and birth certificates cannot be relied upon for proof of citizenship. So, in your perfect world, what should replace birth certificates as primary proof of citizenship? How would someone go about proving their citizenship to get a passport? Be specific. What should someone do? And please remember, that someone who is 70 years old needs just as well to prove their citizenship, as someone who is 7 years old.
Let’s start with those two. Answer them in detail.
How do you say that the Factcheck image on their website does not match? It looks like it does match.
First, it is an embossed stamp, which you apparently are comparing to an ink representation. So it’s not going to flow on the page like ink does.
I see what could be stars pressed into the page. But a star pressed into paper, contingent on unknown pressure, particularly in the Factcheck image, is not going to look like a drawing of a star.
Second, it’s not the greatest of photos for being able to read or compare the details of the seal. But it does look like the required elements are present.
Third, are you mixing up the Factcheck COLB and the Factcheck LFBC?
The birther sites I see on this matter look to be using the COLB. The LFBC seal on the Factcheck image is barely identifiable and does not even seem useable in such a comparison.
So to answer your question, it looks to me like the Factcheck image is the correct seal. It looks to me like the birther sites making this argument are misleading you.
I certainly do not see how you can say it does not match. I don’t think the Factcheck image is clear enough to rule out a match, but that it is good enough to say it looks enough like the correct seal.
If you really want to nail it down, you need a better image, and/or some forensic analysis.
In the meantime, while you pursue your hobby, Hawaii has verified the information.
Because we have the AP copy
Savannah Guthrie did but we have a photocopy of the document.
The HDOH does not provide electronic documents…
So why are the birthers looking at a derived document to show that the original may be fraudulent?
A bit foolish no?
The printed documents, which are photocopies of the original LFBC shows no mixed DPI
The DPI of the PDF is set at 72 dpi but the jpeg has half the resolution compared to the text.
Print out the PDF and you can see how.
Note that the print DPI does not change but rather that the JPEG has half the resolution which means that it takes 4 text pixels to fill one jpeg pixel. This is easily visible.
Why is the background at half the resolution? Because the compression step samples the background at half the resolution.
Sigh… This is not rocket science.
As I said, this is not rocket science. I cannot believe that the Cold Case Posse overlooked this…
If he is Chinese, this may be a better defintion of what he is doing here: 土气. I once had a friend who wanted a tattoo saying “earth” and “äir”. I told him to check with someone who was Chinese but not a tattoo artist what that could mean if put together. He did check, and never got that tattoo. Wasn’t your wife Chinese? You can check with her.
Unless Joe thinks that he is Lord of the Universe, I think it’s also important for him to state whether or not he believes that in principle, every citizen of the United States who might want to do so, say 10 million or more individuals, have the right to suggest their own personal different standards of proving citizenship (different from what the courts currently support or from what Joe now suggests), and also each independently declare that no “lesser” standard of proof will suffice?
Get lost, you pathetic excuse for molecular structure.
土 – earth
气 – air
土气 – rustic
THe photocopy does not show much of safety paper but the scan of course does. We know that the information on the document is correct as it was certified as such by the DOH, more than once IIRC.
Check out the AP photocopy and the Whitehouse PDF which was scanned.
Yes, you can scan security paper, that should be self evident as even the birthers managed to do so… Security paper does confuse many copiers. Newer security paper also reveals hidden text (VOID) when copied.
You might find this interesting.
http://www.troygroup.com/industry/government/vitalrecords/resources/documents/troy_secure_vital_records_printing.pdf
That completely depends on what you mean by “faithfully reproduce”. Every single electronic image, everywhere on the Internet, showing any physical object, is an approximation, and has some variation from the original. Every single one. There is absolutely no possible way anyone could take a copied paper document, like President Obama’s birth certificate, and provide it on the Internet in a perfect form. It is absolutely impossible. The PDF provided by the Whitehouse is perfectly in line with what anyone would expect to see from a normal scanning/optimizing/posting sequence. So the image imperfections are natural, expected, and not untrustworthy in the least.
Now what I would mean by “faithfully reproduce” is whether it faithfully represents the one and only thing that matters – the information in the document. And in that sense it is indeed a completely faithful reproduction, as has been verified by the State of Hawaii.
Also about the basket weave pattern
So it may be that I was wrong about it not copying well, although the copy presented by the White House and released by AP shows significant degradation in the background.
Absolutely.
That is the only kind of ‘faithfull reproduction’ that matters. It is the exact kind of ‘faithfull reproduction’ that is the entire, one hundred percent totality of the scanning/copying task.
If ‘perfect’ reproduction, were the goal, they would be counterfeit machines, not copy machines.
So let’s look at a beautiful example
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=42895
I obtained this file from gsgs who added dots every 8 pixels, starting from the top right. We observe many interesting features
1. When components overlap, they become part of the background. Note that where the signature overlaps with “igna” in the text above, the text becomes part of the background?
2. Note how the background appears to be filled behind the text, but note how the colors end at the 8 pixel boundaries?
3. Note the strong blocking where the jpeg clearly shows its 8×8 pixel boundaries, indicating that the JPEG compression was set to a high number, causing these artifacts.
These are all artifacts of the compression approach used.
Such strong evidence has been totally ignored by our Cold Case Posse ‘experts’ and yet they help understand many of what they concluded to be ‘indicators of fraud’.
Sloppy sloppy.
Reading through this discussion peaked my curiosity, so I got out my son’s birth certificate from DOH in 1991. The seal is very difficult to make out. The marks in the star locations look more like tiny striped balls. The circle of dots doesn’t go all the way around. Apparently the seal was not applied evenly or was unevenly worn because part of it is quite faint to the point of missing some bits. The snakes do not look like they cross in front of the staff.
Now I am sad as apparently I didn’t have a baby, judging from the “fake” seal. 🙁 I don’t know how I will explain this to the young man I raised. Thank goodness it fooled DMV for a drivers license and we somehow got away with using it for a passport, too!
The other day there was a segment on TV where they had a sinologist check Chinese tattoos at a tattoo fair. There was one girl who said her two symbols meant “good sex” but it turned out they meant “wild animals”. Another had her symbols mirrored.
Is there any chance your son was indeed born but born in Kenya?
Not to be pedantic but considering the known history of the Kingdom Animalia, good sex = wild animals.
Sheldon: Why do you have the Chinese character for “soup” tattooed on your right buttock?
Penny: It’s not “soup,” it’s “courage.”
Sheldon: No it isn’t. But I suppose it does take courage to demonstrate that kind of commitment to soup.
土气 – rustic. Google translate may say that, but what I meant was “someone who has never left his village”. Chinese Hillbilly.
OT – Gloria and were walking last New Year’s Eve on South Street. While waiting for a light to change, a young woman said “Excuse me, but do you speak Chinese?”
I replied my wife was a native Mandarin speaker.
“Oh, good. Would you come with me to a tattoo shop? I want the characters for “inner strength” on my stomach.” We went with her, and Gloria wrote them out, and guided the artist.
While she was having it done, she listened to us and asked me, “Are you having a mid-life crisis?”
Only on South Street in Philly.
Surely you believe that story?
Then why is the safety color different on the outsides of the copy of the LFBC.
Oh, the computer prints out a diffentent color for the safety paper if thng are pasted onto it
Did you ever try to change the displayed information in a photocopy that has been printed on safety paper!
Hey, Joe…
You never answered my questions, here they are again for your reference…
1. How would you have Obama release this document? Be specific. What exactly should he do? Should he show it to the White House Press Corps, and let them touch it? Should he scan it in, and put it on the website for everybody to see? What exactly should he do?
2. Now, let’s make an assumption that you’re right and birth certificates cannot be relied upon for proof of citizenship. So, in your perfect world, what should replace birth certificates as primary proof of citizenship? How would someone go about proving their citizenship to get a passport? Be specific. What should someone do? And please remember, that someone who is 70 years old needs just as well to prove their citizenship, as someone who is 7 years old.
Let’s start with those two. Answer them in detail.
My original birth certificate, issued in 1948, has no seal at all.
However, Many years later when I needed a passport I had to get a new one with a seal.
Of course, we have seen the document, people have touched it the department of Hawaii has verified and certified it. So yes, we do know that the original document was photocopied onto security paper. That’s how it works.
YOu mean on the PDF copy of the LFBC… You do understand the extreme amount of compression that was used to reduce the size from 30-50 Mbytes into a mere 300 Kbytes? That’s an immense loss of information.
Trying to change the information in a photocopy is impossible. I am not sure what you mean by ‘printing out a different color’, the printer is a black and white laser printer. What happens with some safety paper is that when copied, it displays VOID or other text. This safety paper merely makes it hard to cut and paste pieces.
Hope this clarifies…. I know you do not like to here about these facts.
In S L O W M O T I O N for our friend Joe
1. The original long form birth certificate is bound in a book and held by the DOH of Hawaii
2. The certified copy of the long form birth certificate was generated by photocopying the original onto security paper, adding a signature stamp, a date stamp and a seal.
3. The document was handled by a White House lawyer and transported to DC
4. The document was scanned in and reduced in size and made available as a PDF
5. The document was shown to the available press, and Savannah Guthrie took pictures
6. A photocopy of the document was also provided and distributed by the AP which scanned it into a jpeg
Are you still with me Joe?
Of course the HDOH provides electronic documents, Where did you ever get that idea?
Oh from one of the anti-birther blogs
Well, here is the rule!
(i) In addition to statutorily required means of
notice, the department may send official notices and
other communications by mail, facsimile transmission,
electronic mail transmission, or Internet website
posting, and such notices and communications by the
department shall be complete upon mailing,
transmission, or posting.
Somehow I do think you will not admit your errors, ever!
What are you babbling about now? The color of the basketweave is the same outside the LFBC as it is on the inside.
You still do not understand the issue, we are not talking about electronic information but rather electronic versions of the Birth Certificate. They do not provide such as the document would not have a raised seal and would be too easy to copy… Just print it out.
The DOH may provide verification of data in electronic format, just as they did when they verified Obama’s birth to the Arizona Secretary of State.
You are so desperate that you have abandoned simple logic. Show me that the DOH delivers electronic versions of their birth certificates…
Why do you think they sent a lawyer from DC to pick up the documents?
Geez my friend… This is not rocket science.
There is safety paper which bleeds through if something is printed on it, sometimes in ‘red’ which makes it harder to manipulate such a document.
I am not sure why our friend is so clueless though.
Where the original document bent, there is a shadow which is to be expected just like when you photocopy a book and you cannot hold the document completely flat, the part that is removed from the glass will allow light to seep in resulting in a darker picture.
Sigh…
Sure, just follow the law!
The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory or Possession thereto.
The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form.
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.
“The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form”
Have the judge attest to the accuracy of the LFBC!
There is nothing wrong with the system as along as you can follow the US Code 28 USC 1738 to have an impartial party, if possible, verify that the BC is correct
You all seem to ignore that fact that states have admitted bc fraud exists and in Bustamant X111 it as shown that the recorded certifified BC was fake!
You do know what a facsimile transmission is, don’t youj?
Yes, it’s called a Fax
(Electronics & Computer Science / Telecommunications) an international system of transmitting a written, printed, or pictorial document over the telephone system by scanning it photoelectrically and reproducing the image after transmission Often shortened to fax
The DOH does not and cannot fax certified birth certificates and will not provide for such. The only birth certificate the DOH of HI now provides is the short form which contains computer generated information printed on security paper, with signature of the registrar, a date stamp and a raised seal.
There is no provision for providing any electronic version.
So we know that the document that came from Hawaii was a certified copy of the original long form birth certificate. We know that this was scanned at the White House and released as a PDF, we also know that the document was photocopied and distributed and the AP provided a jpeg of that document. FInally we know that people like Savannah Guthrie saw the document and photographed it.
If you can show me any evidence that the DOH releases certified birth certificates in electronic format then by all means.
The only electronic information they would release is a verification, although the document, to be legally admissible, will have to also be sent as a printed document. The DOH of Hawaii released such a verification letter to the SOS of AZ for example.
Hope this clarifies…
This however is neither a statute not a judicial proceeding.
Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence explains
And that is what happened with the Long Form Birth certificate.
…
Judges appear to have accepted the verification of the document. And as I showed, under the Federal Rules of Evidence 902, the document meets all the requirements.
Sorry my friend…
Don’t you get tired of being wrong all the time? What about doing some independent research rather than cut-and-pasting from birther sites…
Geez…
Yes, it was a foreign document that had been incorrectly accepted.
That is exactly the story that was told to WND’s forensic document examiner Ivan Zatkovich by the HDOH:
“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.”
“That Hawaii Department of Health stated that they had nothing to do with producing the PDF, and directed me to the White House for all such questions.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Zatkovich-Obama-PDF-report-final.pdf
From the Court ruling
and
Did you even read the ruling?
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1608338.html
Doubt it…
Excellent
Thanks for putting an end to another one of Joe’s foolish ‘arguments’
Automatic or stick?
Schtick…
bada-bing
Obama has followed the law.
You mean the seal that’s so apparent on the Factcheck Photographs?
Do you really think that there’s a judge that attests to every document? Do you really think that the State Department has a judge that attests to the authenticity of each document? Courts are constitutionally barred from ruling on theoretical cases, and what you’re asking is that Obama asks a court to violate the constitution in order to declare him eligible?
I’d say that the Hawaii Department of Health is a neutral authority that’s actually charged with verifying these documents. They’ve said multiple times that the birth certificate is authentic, first in 2007, where they said under penalty of perjury, “I certify that this is a true abstract or copy of the file on record in the Hawaii Department of Health. Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar.”
No, we don’t ignore that. The burden of proof isn’t on us. We’ve made the Prima facie evidence. You now have to prove that this specific document is false, which you have yet to do. And it seems impossible to do when you have the Hawaii Department of Health saying that it’s authentic multiple times. Hate to tell you this, but if the Hawaii Department of Health declares it to be authentic, then it is a legal impossibility for it to be a forgery.
Your answers are lacking. I didn’t have to get a judge to declare my birth certificate authentic when I went in for my driver’s license. I didn’t have to get a judge to declare my birth certificate authentic to get my passport. Both of these were done with a document that looked almost exactly like Obama’s. So, again, my question to you is why the Federal Government did this for me, but you believe that they shouldn’t do this to other people?
Your argument boils down to “Well, these birth certificate fraud happens, so therefore Barack Obama’s birth certificate has a possibility to be fraudulent.
What you’re basically stating is that Obama should walk into a Federal Court, and ask them to violate the constitution and rule on a hypothetical situation and declare the birth certificate valid? I thought you had more respect for the Constitution than that.
Oh, and Congress has already declared Obama eligible multiple times. They certified his vote twice, and both houses passed resolutions that say that Obama was born in Hawaii. Congress determines the eligibility of the President. So, why do you hate the Constitution and still declare insist that Congress is wrong?
Let us think about that abit!
Why did they post it at an angle? Where died the document get the second fold which was not in the first one?
Why is the seal using bars to show letters, instead of letter, why does there nowhere on it show the word Hawaii>
No, we don’t ignore that. The burden of proof isn’t on us. We’ve made the Prima facie evidence. You now have to prove that this specific document is false, which you have yet to do. And it seems impossible to do when you have the Hawaii Department of Health saying that it’s authentic multiple times. Hate to tell you this, but if the Hawaii Department of Health declares it to be authentic, then it is a legal impossibility for it to be a forgery
You must be joking , the HDOH can only say that the copy that they have is an authentic copy of the document on file,
they have no way of knowing whether the document is real or fake.
Why do you think that the certified copy can not be a fake, because it is a copy of a document in the file.?
If the document was fraudulent completed and filed that does not make the document a true document, as was shown in Bustamante Xlll where the court said the California Birth certificate was fraudlulent applied for, but the State issued a certified copy of the birth certificate!
No, it was a certified copy of a late filed California Birth Certifcate that was provided by Bustamante Xlll to the court to verify that he was a citizen of the USA as he was born in California.
The toreign document was his Philipine Birth Certifcate that the court said could not be used because the defendent could not challenge the provider of the birth certificate as to its authenticity
It can not be a copy or abstract when certified, it must be one or the other as they are completley different things.
So, is it a copy, or is it an abstract? The certifier did not say!
It must be an abstract as it is missing some of the information on the birth certificate!
And therefore it is not completely accurate!
Here is an indication of the fact that the BC is fake
http://www.wnd.com/images/2011/07/090811Hospitaldoc.jpg
this shows that the BC had different fonts in the document, which is pretty hard to believe when a mechanical typewriter was used to complete the BC.
the right side is from another Hawaiian BC for comparison purposes.
So, Joe…
You stated that all the Hawaii Department of Health can say is that there’s a document on file, and they don’t know whether or not the document on file is authentic or not? You’re basically saying that the Hawaii Department of Health can’t declare anything as authentic, because all they have is the document on file, and they don’t really know whether or not it was fraudently filed? Then it gets back to my question, Joe.
Under your assumption, no document from the Hawaii Department of Health can ever be proven to be authentic, because the Hawaii Department of Health doesn’t know whether or not the document that they have on file is authentic, or not. Which means that you obviously don’t think that a legitimate birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health is proof of ciitizenship. So, we have somewhere around 1,392,313 people living in Hawaii. I’m making an assumption that approximately that many people were born in Hawaii (it’s probably a bit lower), so, my question to you is how exactly should these 1.3 million people prove their citizenship.
And furthermore, extrapolating your argument, no State Department of Health truly knows whether the document on file is authentic or not, and whether their database is authentic. So, using your assumption, that means that birth certificates are completely worthless to prove citizenship. Therefore, how does anybody who was born in this country prove their citizenship?
Actually yes, it can…
OR – one or the other is true. So, it is either a copy, or an abstract. Either way, it is certified as containing the information that the Hawaii Department of Health has on record, and is fully admissible in the court of law.
Then bring evidence it was. Your claim that it is possible does not invalidate the BC, just like the fact that counterfeit money exists does not invalidate the value of the dollar notes in your wallet. You don’t need a court ruling to pay with them.
You stick to a standard of proof that is impossible to meet.
Witnesses “may be lying”. Documents “may be forged” or “may be based on information by lying witnesses”. So pray tell me, what would constitute 100% reliable proof in your bizarro world?
But we know that the document is not a fake as it has been verified and certified by the DOH of Hawaii. You are still looking at highly compressed data…
And the letters look quite similar. I fail to understand how you can be so willing to abandon logic and reason.
Do you really hate our President that much that you are willing to make yourself look foolish?
Why are people looking at a highly compressed document when we know that the information on the document has been fully verified and certified?
What’s so hard to understand here? That a highly compressed document looks ‘weird’ to those who do not understand its level of compression?
Sigh…
I think one can narrow that down to “how did previous Presidents prove their citizenship?”. Obviously their “insufficient evidence” was enough simply because no-one ever claimed a white President might have been born in Canada or been lying about his true parents.
Then cue the moving goalposts.
The latest one I saw on a birther site (I think it was somebody at ORYR) was the claim that they need to see SAD’s doctor’s records from *before* birth to prove she was actually pregnant and had appointments with her physician.
I see, it was:
Delayed registration of birth raises a red flag. But of course, we know that the Obama birth certificate was registered at the time soon after his birth.
So far there is nothing that puts any doubt on Obama’s birth on US soil. Other than wishful thinking.
Now if you can find the same evidence that surrounded Bustamante…
PS: We know that the document was filed soon after his birth because of the newspaper articles announcing the birth.
So no delayed birth, just a hospital signed birth certificate. Nothing that shows any evidence that President Obama was not born in the US.
The defining quality of the birther bigot jackass.
It is clearly a copy and not an abstract as this is the long from which was obtained from a copy of the original.
What information do you believe is missing?
The COLB indeed was an abstract, and is computer generated not generated from a real document that is photocopied onto security paper
Huh? Perhaps you can be a bit clearer about your next confusions. The original was part of a book of certificates and when photocopied the left hand side showed evidence of this. As expected. As to the ‘second fold’ I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not sure what you mean by ‘post it at an angle’. Perhaps if you take the time to make an argument I could help you understand the details.
Because it is an embossed seal? But we know that the document is accurate as it has been verified.
Well, that is a problem for you is it not because by virtue of being filed in 1961, the document is presumed to be authentic. Now if you have any evidence to the contrary…
But we have the filing date, the signatures by the parties, the newspaper articles. So the courts will accept the document as accurate unless someone can raise a real argument that it is a fake.
But noone has seen the original so the conclusion that some believe that the highly compressed PDF shows evidence of ‘forgery’ or more accurately compression, does nothing to undermine the veracity of the original document…
I am glad though that you are abandoning the ‘the PDF is flawed’ arguments.
Good for you
I’ve debunked this Irey chart on WND years ago. First, he keeps using letters from differently bent parts of the document, second, he ignores that real typewriters (not the modern kind, of course) do this as well. All his examples can be explained with different curvature of the paper (that’s how you get different “sizes” and “widths”), different appliance of ink and his famous “kerning” which is actual bleeding and incomplete advancement of the paper (there are many examples of old typewriting on Google Images which show exactly this behaviour, according to birthers they must all be forged ;)).
Then there was the Zullo-style dishonesty on Irey’s part because his first publication on the “different letters” drew red “guide lines” which were clearly wrong, suggesting different slants where there were none. Irey first denied that, finally conceded an “error” on his part but never replied to my further remarks about his other letter comparisons (and never clearly retracted his “error” either, preferring to leave that in the depths of that WND thread) and even claimed in other threads that his charts were “unrefuted” by “Obots”.
It was a certificate of delayed birth which always has opportunities of fraud. The government showed that the document may likely not be trustworthy.
But we know that President Obama’s birth certificate was not a delayed one, so again, there is no problem here.
Nice try though but totally missing the point that a certified copy of the birth certificate is prima facie legal evidence. And saying that “it may be fake” is not how one overcomes the prima facie nature.
Analyzing a highly compressed PDF also does not help out either.
And I assume you accept that the federal rules of evidence accept the document as self authenticating evidence?
Good for you.
I can only guess he was talking about the Factcheck photos of the COLB (since only this one was “folded” and photographed at different angles, plural).
Maybe he wonders why Factcheck posted views from the side instead of perpendicular to the plane. Which comes dangerously close to birther claims of “why did he show it anyway” or “why did he send his lawyers to HI when they could’ve faxed it” etc. Catch-22.
As I, for one, and NBC above, have pointed out, that would be because it is a seal *pressed* into paper, an embossed seal. Furthermore, the Factcheck photograph is not a good one for teasing out details from an embossed image. But it is good enough. You can see that all the required elements are present.
Moreover, Lani, above, pointed out the condition of the seal on her own son’s physical document (not a photograph on a website).
That’s how *seals* are. They are not ink drawings.
It seems to me all of your arguments are of this caliber. What is ridiculous is not your errors as much as your indignation. “How dare an embossed seal act like it was embossed!” You make mistakes, meaningless comparisons, and get indignant at other people for being accurate?
There is a difference between fraud and forgery. Just as you cannot forge your own signature, Hawaii cannot forge its own birth certificates. If Hawaii were presented with fraudulent information in the beginning, then that is fraud (by someone), not forgery.
What they attest to is that the information on a birth certificate is contained on the original birth records.
They do not claim to have solved the existential problem of security whereby all birth certificates forever are absolutely true and accurate and representative of actual facts and inviolate against even Lex Luthor.
If you have proof of fraud, bring it. Otherwise, blah blah blah.
I love that term. It fits them so well.
You seem to ignore the fact that criminals exist and that therefore according to your own logic you apparently are a thief. So are you a safecracker or just a carjacker?
Why did you start talking about the COLB when the discussion was the appearance of the security feature on the LFBC? That’s a change of subject, Joe.
Why did they post it [the COLB] at an angle? Because that made it easier to see the embossed seal (more contrast from light and shadows)
Where did the second fold come from? It was always there, but because a flatbed scanner presses single page documents flat, you can’t see folds unless there’s sufficient wrinkling at the fold.
Why is the seal using bars to form letters? Because that’s what HDoH decided to use. You can see this on many embossed seals from Hawaiian birth certificates, including the one you claimed upthread was a real seal.
Why are you pretending that the word HAWAII isn’t on the the seal? That you’ll have to answer for yourself, as I’ve pointed out previously that it is shown, including where in the image you can find it. Last time: in the image, you can see the word “HAWAII” at the top. Because we are looking at the backside of the seal and the page has been rotated, the letters are upside down, so it looks like “HVMVII”
Do we have these things numbered yet? Like the joke about telling old jokes in prison? #34!
Of course, saynomorejoe, you could just use Dr.C’s Debunker’s Guide above, to read up on how photocopying the original records would produce the shadows and what not that you are bringing up as if they are gotchas.
Every BC (long form or short form) produced in the US has some information missing.
This entirely correct and logical sentence is what people like Zullo have misrepresented in true Soviet propaganda style by making it appear as if only Hawaiian vital records have this problem (and also their “loophole” argument that Hawaii was somehow in the “fraudulent naturalization business”).
They would take your sentence and go “see, even Obots admit Hawaiian records cannot be trusted 100%”.
It reminds me of the way a German TV magazine tried to accuse the government of selling a missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads to Saudi Arabia in the 80’s. They made it appear as if this missile was specifically designed for that purpose when actually any missile would’ve been able to carry a nuclear warhead.
They even mistranslated an expert who said “Any missile can carry…” (English original) to “This missile can carry…” (translation).
It would’ve been enough to stick to the facts (because selling any such missile wasn’t a good idea), but no, they believed they had to “pimp” the facts to create the impression of even greater malice.
The whole Zullo/CCCP dog+pony show reminds me of these propaganda tricks. Not funny when used by politicians, really bad when used by journalist and criminal when used by “law enforcement”.
Dr. Fukino on the birth certificate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9D4n6_Uifk
For saynomorejoe:
There is a reason that birth certificates are a universal exception to the hearsay rule in Court. By their very nature, a birth certificate is based on information that has been provided by one or more third parties. No one from any department of health or department of records can ever attest to the truth of the contents of the documents because they have no personal knowledge of them. What they can do is attest to or certify that something is a true and correct copy of the document on record or that a document contains the same information as the one on file. This certification caries with it the full weight of the US Constitution and must be given full faith and credit. It must be accepted as prima facie evidence of the contents, otherwise BC’s would have no value whatsover. If someone has evidence that the contents of the BC are wrong, they can produce them to counter the BC, but not to question the validity of the BC itself. And believe when I tell you that countering the presumption of accuracy of a BC would require a lot of evidence.
Birthers not understand that if the President’s BC was not given full faith and credit by a Court it would literally be the end of this Country as you know it. Your driver’s license would no longer considered to be valid proof of your identification. Think about that long and hard.
—-
Wow, I can’t believe you are still quoting the wrong law–the law pertaining to records of the legislatures and courts–after you’ve been corrected repeatedly!
J.D. Sue: Wow, I can’t believe you are still quoting the wrong law–the law pertaining to records of the legislatures and courts–after you’ve been corrected repeatedly!
WILLFUL IGNORANCE
—
Willful DISINFORMATION!
Wow, I had no idea that Joe is this desperate that he has to continue to ignore these facts.
He really does not seem to like our President and our Constitution now does he? Instead he relies on false or flawed information and remains unwilling to accept that he was wrong.
Indeed, well said.
—
Exactly, without full faith and credit, we wouldn’t be able to function as a union at all.
As with many birther bigots, there is no discussion here. The goal of a jackass is to be a jackass.
So why do some have such a hard time understanding why under rule 902 of the federal rules of evidence, a birth certificate properly attested to by an official is not subject to the hearsay rule and becomes prima facie evidence? See also rule 803.
Such follies. Do these people not realize that the courts will never accept their arguments based on a highly compressed PDF? Especially when all the information on the document has been certified as accurate?
Hilarious how desperate these cases have become. Which is why even Zullo appears to be retreating to the ‘well, he is also not natural born because he was not born to two citizen parents’ or even more extreme.
If they really believe the Vattel interpretation they would have pursued it but wait it was pursued and rejected several times now.
I do not think a jackass even has a goal, it’s a burden he or she will have to carry, goal or not…
Also the ‘best evidence rule’
Sigh…
to borrow from upton sinclair: “it is difficult to get a birfer to understand something, especially when his bigotry depends upon it.”
Like I said before Traderjack is a troll. He will not come to face reality but instead plays word games as a way not to accept reality.
If Joe were correct, none of us would be able to register to vote because we do not have court orders attesting that we are citizens and old enough to vote. Of course, that goes for Joe as well. I wonder what proof of age and citizenship he gave to his Board of Elections when he registered to vote? Did he get a judge to sign off on it?
Joe/Trader Jack isn’t interested in the truth, as he has demonstrated time and again.
Yeah… He surely seems to fit the bill…
We’ve gone over this before Joe.
The HDoH can only say that the INFORMATION on the PDF document matches the INFORMATION on the birth record they have on file. Since the index is a public record, they can also report the INFORMATION that is in the Index. This has been done several times.
They don’t have any control over the physical document once it leaves their offices, so they can’t say anything about what happened to the physical document after that. They didn’t have anything to do with the PDF so they certainly can’t say anything about that.
What they can do is answer specific questions about the INFORMATION on the document when asked by persons authorized to by Hawai’ian and Federal Law. They have done this several times, and every time they have confirmed that the INFORMATION on the PDF is accurate.
So, what?
That is not a correct assertion on your part. The document is completely accurate.
The original, source birth event record from the hospital contains all sorts of PRIVATE medical statistics across several pages, (or sections). Much of the information is, by Federal Law, NOT part of a ‘Birth Certificate’.
So yes, in that sense, every Birth Certificate issued anywhere in the United States, is an ‘abstract’ of the original hospital generated birth event record.
That doesn’t make it ‘not completely accurate’, it is still 100% accurate. How does the fact that the Birth Certificate doesn’t specify whether or not the child had webbed toes affect the accuracy of the birth date or location?
Furthermore, since the Hawai’ian non-standard Birth Certificate (the so-called ‘LFBC’) contains 100% of the information on the original birth event details page, and is in fact a photocopy of that page makes it a “true copy” of that page.
However, since the Hawai’ian standard Birth Certificate (the so-called SFBC) is printed from a computer database and and doesn’t contain every INFORMATION data item contained on that original birth event details page it is a “true abstract” of that page. It does however contain every INFORMATION data item required by Federal law to satisfy all requirements that a Birth Certificate is expected to satisfy, (including being able to sign up for Little League and to obtain a driver’s license or passport).
Both documents contain the INFORMATION data items that are relevant to determine Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for the office of President (birth day and birth location) and all INFORMATION data items that are on both documents agree. Furthermore, Hawai’i has, as has been repeatedly pointed out over and over, redundantly, again and again, verified each piece of information several times.
True dat. He has had the same tired bs ‘arguments’ every time he shows up. Seems like once a year or so he gets a flea up his nose (or maybe I’ve just seen him on other fora, and he’s only been here once before).
Whatever.
Oops. By ‘SFBC’ I mean the ‘COLB’ of course. The so-called ‘short form’.
That already is saynomorejoe’s argument. I’m just repeating it back to him with the ridiculousness pointed out. And if he says that even I agree birth certificates cannot be trusted 100%, that is fine because it is true, but meaningless, because the *President’s* birth certificate can be trusted, at this point more than most any other birth certificate. I would trust it more than saynomorejoe’s birth certificate. The President’s birth certificate has been vetted beyond reason, while saynomorejoe has merely proven his own unreliability at best. He keeps quoting the wrong law, and apparently can’t tell the difference between an ink drawing and an embossed seal.
He can try to make the argument out in the world and he will be ridiculed at best. The only people at this point who would accept the propaganda of it are the ones who already do. Let him make it. He already seems to make a habit of getting arrogantly and foolishly indignant at other people’s accuracy, while holding his own errors tighter and tighter.
Propaganda is one thing. Obstinate foolishness another. As we have seen, birther propaganda doesn’t win anything except the already lost.
Which is the real goal of the radical right.
Just like Sarah Palin.
Of course it could be given full faith and credit as a valid copy of a document that has been filed,.
But, by golly, you do know that that is only for the purpose of not having to fight the battle to get it into evidence, but allow it isnto evidence so it can be accepted as truth or fact, depending on the evidence against it.
The fact that something is recorded does not make it truthful in fact!
the information of a recorded document may be true or it may be false. There is nothing in the recording procedure of an recorder’s office that guarantees that the information on the document is true or false, They can only say that it is recorded and the document contains certain information.
A certified copy fo a bogus document does not make it true no matter how it is certified , verified , or sworn to.
When it gets into a court room the attorneys get to tear it apart or support it with evidence! And then the jurist or the jury decides whether it is true.
Full faith and credit only means that the court accepts it as evidence that it can be admitted as evidence. Everything admitted as evidence may be challented,
Bustamante’s reliance on the California delayed registration of birth is not persuasive because the government presented testimony at trial from Reverend Masters, the senior pastor of the Holman United Methodist Church, that the church did not own the building listed on the delayed registration of birth until 1951, 5 years after Bustamante’s purported baptism at that location. Additionally, the government produced evidence from the church’s records that Bustamante was baptized in 1971, not 1946 as listed on the baptismal certificate relied upon for his delayed registration of birth.
They gave it full faith and credit , admitted it into evidence, and showed it was fake!
Why is that so hard to understand?
Because this has nothing to do with Obama’s birth certificate. Obama’s birth certificate is not a delayed certificate, and there is no evidence that the birth certificate is actually fake.
What you’re saying is that the Federal Government’s own standard is not good enough, and that each and every presidential candidate should have to goto a court to get their birth certificate admitted into a court? I’m sorry, but there is absolutely no requirement for him to do that, and the courts are constitutionally barred from ruling on hypothetical decisions. Again, I ask you, why do you hate the Constitution?
It isn’t hard to understand, but it is irrelevant.
Nor is it relevant that a document may be true or false.
Not is it meaningful that evidence may be challenged.
Why do you keep harping on meaningless irrelevancies?
Are you under some impression that the President’s name is Bustamante?
Once you win the battle with yourself over the obvious argument that anything *may* be fake, here, in the case of President Obama, is where you will end up:
“In regard to the allegations of forgery, Judge Malihi said: ‘The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations.'”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/on-the-merits/
Lonely birther bigots with pointless lives just like making noise.
saynotojoe has everything he needs to blow the usurper and his legal lackeys right out of every court in america. (and out of our white house!) i’m sure we’ll be hearing any day now about the greatest constitutional victory in recorded history.
i’m just having a little problem finding his case anywhere on PACER …
I notice that Mr. Bustamante was busted by the Navy in 1975 in California. You know who else had a ‘delayed birth certificate’ in California in 1975?
That’s right Cowpokes… Governor Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Not only does Reagan have a suspicious birth certificate, but he spent his entire life pretending to be someone else, rolled over so Joe McCarthy could scratch his belly, and spied for ‘Miss’ Hoover. All these ‘charges’ are documented historical fact.
On the other hand, the birther ‘charges’ against President Obama are all demonstrable falsehoods, misconceptions born out of ignorance and/or fevered imaginations.
I leave it to you, fine readers, to ponder what the differences are between these two men that attracts such a different treatment: one a secular saint to some, the other the devil incarnate.