Here we continue the analysis of a A Catalog of Evidence – Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii by attorney Mario Apuzzo. We’re adding up the value of the items in his catalog picking up from Birther math Part 4.
So far our total is zero. Parts 1 and 2 summed a compendium of non-specific statements from people who had no reason to know what Apuzzo would lead us to think they said. Part 3 covered primarily innuendo based on the lack of evidence. Part 4 features innuendo about Obama’s birth certificate, plus the unsubstantiated claim that some unnamed expert says that it’s a forgery. Nothing he has presented so far would be admissible as evidence in court except possibly the Indonesian school registration (properly attested). The rest at best it is hearsay, and at worst outright misrepresentation.
Let’s move on to item 21.
(21) In 1961 it was not very difficult for a family member to defraud the State of Hawaii by registering and claiming a child was born there when he or she was not and obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate. Birth registration fraud was easy in Hawaii and other areas as this recent article attests.;
While Apuzzo claims “birth registration fraud was easy in Hawaii” he gives no support of this statement beyond a report that does not single out Hawaii as being a hot bed of vital statistics fraud. The Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General’s report is a more comprehensive survey of the problem. We know that Barack Obama’s birth was registered a scan 4 days following his birth, ruling out a delayed registration, one of the areas where fraud happens more often. There is no argument offered by Apuzzo that Barack Obama was any more likely to have a fraudulently registered birth than any other American. No points for no evidence.
(22) A newspaper birth announcement from local Honolulu newspapers was simply a confirmation that the Honolulu health department “registered” a birth as occurring there based on what someone told them. Given Hawaii’s very lax birth registration laws in 1961…
The newspaper announcement does indeed confirm that Barack Obama’s birth was registered and accepted by the Department of Health in 1961. Apuzzo assumes facts not in evidence when he defames the State of Hawaii with an unfounded claim that they had “very lax birth registration laws.” This claim plays on the ignorance of the reader about how vital statistics registration works in the country as a whole. This is one of Apuzzo’s more offensive smears. The Certification of Live Birth is prima facie evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, valid in any court in the United States, no matter how much sand Apuzzo raises. The reason we register births in this country is to prevent the need to investigate 50-year-old events.
Score: 0. (this one deserves a minus score)
(23) The proffered online image of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) put on the internet states in the lower left corner a date of “Filing” the birth registration. It does not state that the birth registration was “Accepted.” Computer generated COLBs obtained for other people registered in Hawaii have the word and date “Accepted” in that field….
And other birth registrations on the Internet, like the COLB of President Obama say “filed”.” Hawaii Department of Health spokesperson Janice Okubo stated that the certificates where first accepted and then filed. This means that Obama’s certificate which is filed was previously accepted. The “Filed” language is the preferred term because the US Department of State web site description of a valid birth certificate for passport purposes states that it must be “filed…within one year”. Okubo said:
Historically, most often the “date accepted” and the “date filed” is the same date as the majority of births occur on O‘ahu (the island with the largest population in our state). In the past, when births were recorded on paper they may have been accepted at a health office on an island other than O‘ahu, such as Kaua‘i. The paper record would then need to be sent to O‘ahu to have a file number placed on it, and the filed date would then be sometime later (as you know, the state of Hawai‘i is comprised of multiple islands with miles of water in between). The electronic age has changed this process significantly, and it was determined some time ago that one date would suffice.
(24) There is no public drive to commemorate Obama’s place of birth. This is even more suspect given that so many people are questioning his place of birth.
Usually things like this happen after a president leaves office. I don’t personally recall a statue erected at any president’s birth place when he’d been in office less than two years. Nothing to see here. Move along.
(25) No government, political (including the Federal Election Commission), security, or police agency or media entity has confirmed for the American people that Obama was born in Honolulu. These official agencies simply assumed that everyone else did their due diligence on the question of where Obama was born
Apuzzo provides no evidence that this statement is true. We do know that some states (e.g. Hawaii) received sworn statements from the Democratic Party that Obama was eligible. The Federal Election Commission has no responsibility to verify any candidate’s eligibility. But again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Apuzzo’s claim should it prove true might be an argument that greater care should be taken in vetting candidates for office, but it has no bearing whatever on whether Barack Obama was eligible or not. The State of Hawaii says Obama was born there, and so there’s no need for concern this time around.
In this section we see example of unsupported assertions, and the twisting of normal things to sound sinister. That’s what lawyers are trained to do, create doubt. Stay tuned for Part 6.