| "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court,"
Statement by the Dishonorable Judge James Robertson (U.S. District Court, DC ) in his decision in Hollister vs. Soetoro aka Obama. |
Uses the courts to bypass the electorate and its officials in order to gain what it perceives as desirable and just outcomes Today LCCR uses the courts to mandate race-based affirmative action preferences in business and academia. Its major objective is to use the skills and resources of the bar to obtain equal opportunity for minorities by addressing factors that contribute to racial justice and economic opportunity.Given our nations history of racial discrimination, de jure segregation, and the de facto inequities that persist, LCCR elaborates, the Lawyers Committees primary focus is to represent the interest of African Americans in particular, other racial and ethnic minorities, and other victims of discrimination, where doing so can help to secure justice for all racial and ethnic minorities.
Judge Robertson was responsible for dropping two charges against Clintonista and Friend of Hillary, Web Hubbell.
| "By contrast, Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotIy contested presidential primary in living memory."
Statement by the Dishonorable R. Barclay Surrick ( Pennsylvania Eastern District Court ) in his decision in Berg v. Obama. |
| "Secretary of State Debra Bowen contends that there is no basis for mandamus relief because the Secretary of State has no 'ministerial duty' to demand detailed proof of citizenship from presidential candidates," said Judge Michael P. Kenny. "The court finds this argument persuasive."
Statement by the Dishonorable Judge Michael P. Kenny (California Superior Court ) in his decision in Keyes v. Bowen. |
| "The court finds that plaintiff has not presented any evidence to this court that irreparable harm will occur if the records are not provided to the plaintiff. In addition, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the public interest supports the granting of the relief sought. The plaintiff does not have a direct and tangible interest in the vital statistic records being sought, namely the birth certificate of President Obama
Statement by the Dishonorable Judge Bert Ayabe (Hawaii Circuit Judge ) in his decision in Martin v. Lingle. November 21, 2008 |
| In his ruling, Land states in a footnote that Obama defeated seven opponents in a grueling primary campaign that cost the contenders more than $300 million. Obama then moved on to the general election, where he faced Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who Land states got $84 million to wage his campaign. It would appear that ample opportunity existed for discovery of evidence that would support any contention that the president was not eligible for the office he sought ,said Land Statement by the Dishonorable Judge Clay Land (U.S. District Court) in his decision in Rhodes v. Obama. September 16, 2009 |
| Judge David O Carter - United States District Judge |
| Plaintiff makes no secret of her intention to use the redacted Form SS-5 to identify the holder of social security number xxxx-xxx-4425 or, as plaintiff puts it, to confirm her suspicion that the president is fraudulently usin
g that number
Statement by the Dishonorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth (U.S. District Court, Washington, DC) on his decision in the Taitz v. Astrue case. |
| Even if plaintiff's allegations were true, an individual's status as a public official does not, as plaintiff contends, 'make exemption 6 irrelevant to him and his vital records.
Statement by the Dishonorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth (U.S. District Court, Washington, DC) on his decision in the Taitz v. Astrue case. |
Perhaps the judge should consult the Supreme Court case on this issue ( after all he is a judge and should be familiar with it).
Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U. S. 352 (1976)., specifically from the ruling :
3. Exemption 6 does not create a blanket exemption for personnel files. With respect to such files and "similar files," Congress enunciated a policy, to be judicially enforced, involving a balancing of public and private interests. Regardless of whether the documents whose disclosure is sought are in "personnel" or "similar" files, nondisclosure is not sanctioned unless there is a showing of a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, and redaction of documents to permit disclosure of nonexempt portions is appropriate under Exemption 6. Pp. 425- U.S. 370-376.
Since redaction of the document is permitted per Department of the Air Force v. Rose,and Taitz did not request the identity of the person to whom the number is assigned ,
there definitely is no showing of clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The privacy interest of the owner of the number is not violated since the identity of the owner
is unknown and is not being requested.The fact that he is a public official or not does not come into play. Thus, by a Supreme Court Ruling, the SSA is required to turn over a
redacted copy of the records provided it does not show a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Requesting a redacted SS-5 form showing only the year of birth of the
applicant ( not knowing the name of the applicant on the form ) does not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Even if one were to concede from the beginning
that the number belonged to Obama ( which in her request she does not concede ), releasing a redacted SS5 form showing only the birth year of the applicant is not a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy since that is publicly known information.
| The Court is loath to dignify plaintiffs allegations of fraud with a response on the merits. However, suffice it to say that plaintiffs argument is premised on the incorrect assumption that Social Security numbers assigned prior to 1973 have any correlation to the recipients residence, see Employer Filing Instructions and Information, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/stateweb.htm (Prior to 1973, social security numbers were assigned by our field offices. The [first three] number[s] merely established that his/her card was issued by one of our offices in that State.). Plaintiffs entire premise is totally defeated by a cursory examination of this site, which demonstrates that plaintiffs allegations lack any basis in fact.
Statement by the Dishonorable Judge Royce C. Lamberth (U.S. District Court, Washington, DC) on the appeal in the Taitz v. Astrue case. |
First of all, Taitz never claimed the number was issued prior to 1973. In fact, she submitted evidence to the court that it was issued between March and May of 1977, per SSAs
own records ( numbers issued before and after the one in question ). To say that her argument was premised on an assumption that numbers assigned prior to 1973 have a correlation to the residence is either a conscious outright lie by you, or
total ineptitude. If judge, you had bothered to read the case presented to you, you would have known that was a total falsehood. What the procedure was for numbers issued prior to 1973 is of no
relevance to the case. If you had bothered to look at the procedure for numbers issued after 1973 ( I know this may be a little difficult for you to understand , your honor, but 1977
comes after 1973 ) , which is the subject of the whole case, you would have found that the numbers were based on the mailing address put on the application form. Though that
is not necessarily the residence of the applicant, it does have a correlation. If the applicant lives in the South Pacific and his mailing address is from a state in the eastern US, a state where he has
never been, has no ties, and at the time of the application, he was attending school in Hawaii ( wasn't like he was in Massachusetts and could just drive to the state in an hour ), that has a correlation to
the residence. Judge, you are either totally incompetent, corrupt, or losing your reading comprehension skills. You are a disgrace to the bench. So to paraphrase you, your honor, the courts ruling is premised
on the incorrect assumption that the Social Security number in question was issued prior to 1973. It is therefore loath to dignify the courts ruling when the court can't even get the basic facts of the case correct.The courts premise ( that the number was issued prior to 1973 ) is totally defeated by a cursory examination of the facts in this case, which demonstrates the courts ruling lacks any basis in fact.
| "it's the responsibility of the states to make sure political candidates are eligible for the offices they seek"
He believes President Obama "meets the constitutional requirement to be president,"
|
| "Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors."
|
| "The claim that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the U.S. is false. This rumor is simply election year politics." She referred questioners to Snopes for documentation.
|
| "Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president."
|
| "President Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961."
|
| "Now that the election is over and the campaigns have ended, I think it is important that the politicians and the citizens of our nation put the fierce partisan rhetoric aside so that we can work together to come up with real solutions to our country's challenges."
|
| "I further understand that the director of Hawaii's Department of Health recently confirmed that President Obama was born in Honolulu and has personally verified that her agency has his original birth certificate on record. ...he has been elected as President of the United States through a fair process and has shown sufficient documentation, via a state birth certificate, that has been verified as being authentic."
|
she has "personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obamas original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
She did not say original Hawaii birth certificate. Under Hawaiian law (338.17-8), he could have applied for a Hawaii birth certificate at any time after 1982, provided he could show his mother was a resident of Hawaii one year prior to his birth. Part of that process is submitting your original birth certificate. So therefore, in accordance with state policies and procedures , they would have his original birth certificate on record. It does not mean it is a Hawaii birth certificate. The scanned image he put online has NEVER been authenticated by the State of Hawaii. NOBODY in an offical capacity in Hawaii has EVER confirmed that he was born there.
[ A side note ]: Some people like to point out that Janice Okubo ( more on her below ) verified that the online image was authentic . They point to this statement she made in response to a question from Politifact.
"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo told us
She made that statement because she recently ordered a copy of her own and they looked the same. Notice, she refers to it as a birth certificate, which it isn't. It is a certification. Now, they always fail to mention what she said later on
"When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it." Still, she acknowledges: "I don't know that it's possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents."
So, she is NOT verifying it is an authenntic COLB. Link to Politifact article
| "The Constitution and federal law require that, among other things, only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both American citizens) may be President of the United States. Furthermore, both the Director of Hawaii's Department of Health and the state's Registrar of Vital Statistics recently confirmed that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and, as such, meets the constitutional citizenship requirements for the presidency."
|
| "The courts have held that President Obama is a natural-born American citizen.The courts have confirmed the determination of state officials in Hawaii that health department records prove that Barack Obama was born a U.S. citizen in Honolulu."
|
| "President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate."
|
| "The claim that President Obama was born outside of the United States, thus rendering him ineligible for the presidency, is part of a larger number of pernicious and factually baseless claims that were circulated about then-Senator Obama during his presidential campaign. President Obama was born in Hawaii."
|
| "President Obama publicly posted his birth certificate on his campaign website which confirms that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. This birth certificate confirms that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, above the age of 35, and is therefore qualified to be President of the United States of America.."
|
| "On June 13, 2008, the Obama campaign released a copy of his birth certificate after numerous claims were made about his eligibility to hold the office of President. The released copy created additional questions, because it contained a blacked out department file number and was apparently missing a seal, and it was impossible to detect raised text, a common characteristic of official documents. There were satisfactory answers to such questions, however: the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Department's system, and the State places the seal on the back of the certificate. The website Factcheck.org investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles that revealed the raised text and the seal on the back of the document. ... Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States."
|
"the department file number had been blacked out to prevent hackers from breaking into the Health Departments system"
Are you serious ? That is a laughable statement. Hackers dont use the file number to break into a system. Once a system is broken into, a file can be accessed by a file number. But it can also be accessed by name and date of birth.
...the State places the seal on the back of the certificate
You , as a former prosecutor should know better than that. The seal is an embossed seal. It it placed on the front ( with the raised edges visible on the front ) and can be seen on both the front and the back.
"The website Factcheck.org investigated the matter and provided high-resolution photos taken at multiple angles ..." ...
They were not high resolution photos. They were large photos, but the DPI ( dots per inch ) was not what is considered high resolution. Add that to the fact it was taken with a digital camera and, in some cases, standing two feet away from the document. That does not provide you with a high resolution image. If they were truly honest, they would have taken a high resolution TIFF ( no jpg compression ) scan of the document ( both front and back ). They declined to do so. I wonder why ?
Accordingly, it has been concluded that President Obama has met the constitutional qualifications to be President of the United States."
By whom, Factcheck ?
| "The President.. He is a citizen of the United States."
|
| "President Obama's mother was a citizen of the United States, and children of American citizens are conferred citizenship at birth, meaning that Barack Obama was born a citizen of this country regardless of the location of his birth"
|
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
She did not live in the US for 5 years after the age of 14 before he was born. If he was born overseas, not only would he not have "natural born" citizenship, he would not have US citizenship.
| Thank you for getting in touch with me. It's nice to hear from you.
I appreciate knowing of your concern over a rumor that President Obama is ineligible to serve as President because he is not a U.S. citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. Since President Obama was born in Hawaii two years after it was admitted as the 50th state, he is a natural-born citizen. He has released a copy of his birth certificate and it has been authenticated by experts. Following Obama's overwhelming and undisputed victory in the 2008 presidential election, the Supreme Court has considered challenges to his citizenship and dismissed them as being without merit. Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I can be of assistance to you again in the future.
|
Point 1.
The issue is not whether he is a citizen, but a natural born citizen. One would expect a US Senator to know the difference. Apparently not. The Fourteenth Amendment deals with citizenship, not natural born citizenship, or are you equating the two ? Here is the relevant section of the Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
So Sen. Mikulski, if you believe that this means these citizens of the United States are Article II natural-born US citizens - which is what you imply in your letter - then you could substitute the term citizens in the Fourteenth Amendment with the term natural born citizens. Doing so gives this :
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are natural born citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside
So, if the two terms citizens and natural born citizens are interchangeable, as you seem to believe, then that would imply that naturalized citizens - those born overseas and later granted US citizenship - are eligible to become President of the United States. Even elementary school children know that is not possible and was never the intent of the Founding Fathers. Perhaps you need to go back to elementary school and take a refresher course in civics and U S history.
While on the subject of the Fourteenth Amendment, here is a statement made by John Bingham - the father of the Fourteenth Amendment- on the floor of the House in 1866:
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen
So Senator, even if Barack Obama was born on the steps of the U S Capitol, he would not be a natural born citizen since his father was not a US citizen and owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty.
Point 2.
First of all, he has never released a copy of his birth certificate ( which is called the Certificate of Live Birth by the State of Hawaii.) He has only released a computer generated abstraction ( which is called the Certification of Live birth -or COLB - by the State of Hawaii) to a website called Factcheck.org. Who are these experts you refer to that examined the COLB ? They are two employees of Factcheck :
Joe Miller - who has a Ph.D. in Political Philosophy
Jess Henig - who has an M.A. in English Literature.
Senator, perhaps you should check on the qualifications of people you refer to as experts before you call them that.They have NO QUALIFICATIONS AT ALL to examine a document and determine its authenticity, let alone be called experts.
Point 3
The biggest lie of all in such a small paragraph.The Supreme Court has NEVER heard any of the cases on its merits. All the cases have been dismissed due to Lack of Standing NOT because they are without merit. Lack of Standing means that the plaintiff has not suffered a particular injury - he is injured the same as everybody else and therefore has no right to sue. The courts are saying that even if all the merits of the case were valid ( which they have never looked at - contrary to the Senator's assertion ), since everyone is affected the same as a result of him being put in office, no individual has the standing to sue, since to have standing, you must have a particular injury.
| The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii, The Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate." "The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models," Statements of Janice Okubo, Communications Director for Hawaii State Department of Health - Star Bulletin June 6, 2009 |
The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii,
The Health Department "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.
The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past,
All of the above are TOTALLY MISLEADING
From the Department of Hawaiian Homelands Site:
In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout)
When requesting a certified copy of your birth certificate from the Records Section of DOH, let the clerk know you are requesting it "ForDHHL Purposes," and that you need a copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth and not the computer-generated Certification. If mailing in your request form, please fill in "For DHHL Purposes" in the "Reason for Requesting a Certified Copy" section. (See example on page 6.)
So you see, even the Homeland department won't accept the computer generated short form ( COLB ). They require the longform. So she is either intentionally misleading people in her above statements, or she is totally incompetent and doesn't even know the forms her own department issues.
Up until a few days ago, the document that the above quote came from was available on their website. They took it down and replaced it with an updated online version ( the original was published in 2000 ).That wording no longer exists in the current document. However, it does not negate the fact that you can still request a Certificate of Live Birth. Here is the link to the new rules.
Now about the "new" rules. They are basically the same as in the old document. What they changed ( they left it out ) was telling people the process of how to request a Certificate of Live Birth. You can still request one. It is just hidden in the new rules. Here are some excerpts:
"The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a persons birth."
Well, they got that wrong . It is totally the opposite. It is the Certificate, not the Certification that provides more detail, such as witness and doctors signatures, hospital, place of parents birth, etc., which is backed up by the next statement from the document.
"Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth"
True, they no longer issue if requested in the normal manner. That does not mean the original longform is not on file. They are playing semantics when talking about issuing birth certificates. That is not the point here. The point is having access to the longform that is on file. This talk about what the department now issues or does not issue is a red herring. They are being misleading if they insist that the DOH doesn't have copies of the longform and those copies cannot be accessed.Copies of the longform are kept on microfiche or microfilm. Now it may be different for those born after 2001 when they went to their electronic system. But we are talking about a birth in 1961.
"The state Department of Health, the state Archives, and the state Bureau of Conveyances are just a few places where you can look for and obtain primary and secondary documents. Certified copies of records can be obtained for a fee."
How do they define primary documents?
"Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification."
So, you can see. You can still request a certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth. In the new page, they just omitted the detailed process ( as described in the old one ) of how to do it.
"The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,"
True. That is done every year. However, it doesn't matter what it looks like today, or 10 years ago. It matters what it looked like in 1961. Here is the national standard from the CDC that Hawaii followed in 1961. It is a big document ( the form is on Section 5, page 4 figure 5-1 )
"The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests," Okubo said.
That is what the electronic record and the COLB is used for. Same-day certified copies. For the more detailed, you have to go back into the microfiche which takes longer. Just because the electronic record for fast one day service exists, it does not mean the more detailed record does not exist.
Finally, she makes this statement:
"At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," she said.
That just proves that all the information in the original Certificate of Live Birth is still available. How do I know this ? It is the law in Hawaii. From the Hawaii Revised Statutes:
92-31 Disposition of original record. A photograph, microphotograph, reproduction on film, or electronic form of a government record shall be placed in conveniently accessible files and provisions made for preserving, examining, and using the same. Thereafter, a public officer, after having first received the written approval of the comptroller as provided in section 94-3, may cause such record, paper, or document to be destroyed. The comptroller may require, as a prerequisite to the granting of such approval, that a reproduction or print of such photograph, microphotograph, or reproduction on film, or electronic form of the record be delivered into the custody of the public archives for safekeeping. The comptroller may also require the delivery into the custody of another governmental department or agency or a research library of any such record, paper, or document proposed to be destroyed under the provisions of this section.
So, either the original microfiche copy is still available or a complete reproduction of it in electronic form is available. To put something in electronic form and not copy all the data on the original document would be against the law. Where these files have to be accessible and provisions have to be made for examining them, it would be misleading for the Department of Health to say that the information on the original Certificate of Live Birth is no longer available. Under Hawaii Revised Stautes 338-18, those with a direct and tangible interest in the record are permitted inspection of public health statistics records. That would include either the microfiche or electronic copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth.
Email to Janice Okubo on June 27, 2009. I am still awaiting a reply
In the June 6, 2009 issue of the Star Bulletin, you are quoted as saying that the department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii. While all of that is true, Hawaii only ISSUES certifications and it is the OFFICIAL birth certificate issued, are you saying that a person cannot access or get a certified copy of his/her own Certificate of Live Birth ? Because if that is the case, then the department is in violation of Hawaii Law.
You said that ""At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting," Now according to Hawaii Revised Statute 92-31:
DISPOSITION OF ORIGINAL RECORD.A photograph, microphotograph, reproduction on film, or electronic form of a government record shall be placed in conveniently accessible files and provisions made for preserving, examining, and using the same. Thereafter, a public officer, after having first received the written approval of the comptroller as provided in section 94-3, may cause such record, paper, or document to be destroyed. The comptroller may require, as a prerequisite to the granting of such approval, that a reproduction or print of such photograph, microphotograph, or reproduction on film, or electronic form of the record be delivered into the custody of the public archives for safekeeping. The comptroller may also require the delivery into the custody of another governmental department or agency or a research library of any such record, paper, or document proposed to be destroyed under the provisions of this section.
I make reference to this part of the statute:
A photograph, microphotograph, reproduction on film, or electronic form of a government record shall be placed in conveniently accessible files and provisions made for preserving, examining, and using the same.
So, either the original microfiche copy of the Certificate of Live Birth is still available or a complete reproduction of it in electronic form is available. Under Hawaii Revised Stautes 338-18, those with a direct and tangible interest in the record are permitted inspection of public health statistics records. That would include either the microfiche or electronic copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth.
Also, from the DHHL site on applying for Homeland status it says :
The state Department of Health, the state Archives, and the state Bureau of Conveyances are just a few places where you can look for and obtain primary and secondary documents. Certified copies of records can be obtained for a fee."
Primary documents are defined as :
Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification."
So from all of the above, it seems one with a direct and tangible interest CAN obtain a certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth.
My question to you is this: Is your statement - that the "department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii - meant to imply that one cannot receive a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth, or does it mean that one can obtain a copy - just not in the regular manner ?
Ms. Okubo,
| Are you looking for the president's birth certificate? The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the president's birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people (laughter) that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president's birth there, but it's on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we'll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy."
|
Since you have already posted an authentic copy of the COLB online for all the world to see, why does Obama continuously challenge any attempt from a third party to access a copy for themselves? After all, as you said, you already released a copy online. Why all the stonewalling ?
You say you "certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we'll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy." All it would take is a cost of a stamp and a signed waiver to the State of Hawaii allowing them to release a copy of the COLB ( I am not even talking about the longform certificate ) to anybody that requests it. Instead, Obama has teams of lawyers thwarting any attempt by anyone to get a glimpse at a legitamite copy for themselves.
Now you have to ask yourself, if what is presented online is a true and accurate copy of what is in his file , why does he still refuse to sign a waiver with the Hawaii DOH for release of his records so that anyone can get a hard copy straight from the source ? Why is he blocking access to his record ? After all, he supposedly just released it. Maybe it is because what he has shown is an altered version of his actual record used to cover up what is in his complete record. If what the DOH says is true in that they scanned his record out of a book, then he is not showing us his full record. There is something else in that record he is hiding.
Looking at his BC, you see the part on the left is bent. That is consistent with scanning a page from a book and getting the right most part of the previous page in the scan.
The obvious assumption is that it is the right hand side of the previous BC in the book, but if it was, something doesn't match up. Looking at the horizontal lines that connect the 2 sheets , they are perfectly aligned - meaning anything printed on left hand page would be in the same position as that on the right hand page.
Now if you go down to 7d and look at the bent part, you see a ? .
If that was the right hand side of the previous BC, it would match up with what is on the right side of his BC. One would assume it was a ? from either field 7e or 7g. However, the closest ? is below the line above 7f on the left ( which is the same line above 7g on the right ). Where did that ? come from. It is out of place. If the bend was the right hand side of another BC, the ? should be BELOW line 7f ( or line 7g ) , not ABOVE it.
Because these two pages are perfectly aligned, if the page on the left was the same form as the one on the right ( meaning a previous BC ), we should be seeing a ? at the purple dot in the picture below ( or anywhere within the green border ). We don't.
Plus if that was the same form on the left, we should be seeing a horizontal line either above or below the ?. We don't.
One more thing about the alignment of the two pages. There is a very good reason why the two pages are in perfect alignment. It is because they are not two separate pages at all. They are one continuous page. You can see that from a close up of the horizontal lines connecting the two pages. If they were two pages that were just perfectly aligned ( why would there be a reason to do that when putting it in a book since it would have nothing to do with the next record ), you would see a slight break between the lines when magnified. You see nothing of the sort. As can be seen below, it is one continuos line. You can even see the black spots where the horizontal lines intersect with the vertical, which is what happens on a printed page.
The obvious conclusion to this is that his record consists of two forms- not just the one form that he presented - and that the form on the left is not a different BC, but part of his form. What birth certificates consist of two forms ? In Hawaii, none. The normal birth certificate is one form. Why would there be two forms then ? There are only two explanations. The first is that his birth certificate was ammended and what we are seeing is the ammended version, not the original. The second is that the form on the left is a supplemetal form that had to be filed with the standard form. This would be the case if it was an out of state ( or country ) filing. As part of that filing, you are required to submit supporting documents such as a sworn statement testifying to the birth and of course a copy of the original birth certificate. So one question still remains :
Then we have the PDF , which is a color document. Now lets compare the positions of both the date and signature stamps on both of these documents.
DATE STAMP:
If you look at the hash marks of the security paper to the right of the red numbers on the PDF version, you see that the top of the A in April is the tenth hash mark down from the bottom line of the BC. The same can be seen on the Guthrie photo.
If you look at the hash marks above the blue numbers ( green on Guthrie ), you see that the A starts at the eighth hash mark from the vertical line on the left of the BC. The same can be seen on the Guthrie photo.
SIGNATURE STAMP:
If you look at the PDF, you will see the A of Alvin is just below the tenth hash line from the bottom line of the BC. The same can be seen on the Guthrie photo. The A in Alvin is also 19 hash marks from the left on both the PDF and Guthhrie photo.
What does this tell us ? BOTH THE DATE STAMP AND THE SIGNATURE STAMP ARE IN EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION ON BOTH DOCUMENTS. That is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for someone to do that by just hand stamping in the normal manner. They would intentionally have to do it. But why would they ? There is no reason to put them in exactly the same spot, so why bother ?
Both these documents therefore can't be different documents. One had to be created from the other. Now the PDF could not be created from the one Guthrie saw and photographed since that is a black and white document and the PDF is color. Conversely, the Guthrie document could not have been created from the PDF, because according to Guthrie, it had a raised seal that she felt ( thus it could not be a scan ). So either Guthrie is lying about the seal ( and if she is, why would she lie and who told her to do so ), or there is a raised seal on the copy Guthrie saw. If this is the case, it CANNOT be a seal from Hawaii since that document would have had to have been created from the PDF document back at the White House- ( there would be no need or reason for them to create a copy in Hawaii since they provided two copies and any copy Hawaii would have provided would have to be from their master file, not a scanned copy of something already printed out and stamped - since they would have to stamp the copy independently. )
NOTE: A word about the seals. As you can plainly see, a seal is visible on the Guthrie photo. However, you cannot determine if it is a raised seal. You can also see the seal on the PDF version. It is faint, but by adjusting the contrast and putting it through different color filters, you can make it out. The thing to notice is where the seal passes next to and under the U of the registrar signature. On both documents , the seal passes in exactly the same place. This indicates that the seal is in EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION ON BOTH DOCUMENTS. This negates the argument that Hawaii could have made a Xerox copy of the first printout after it was stamped and certified it by applying the seal to it ( which would have been against the law in Hawaii) Once again, it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for someone to do that just by applying the seal in the normal manner. They would intentionally have to do it. This WITHOUT A DOUBT proves that one of the documents had to have been created from the other. Thus, one of the two documents ( or both ) is a fabrication.
