Main Menu

Reply to Douglas Vogt (Updated)

Dr. Conspiracy

Douglas Vogt, president of a company that sells scanners and scanner software, published a letter claiming to have proved that Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate is a forgery, and for that matter that Barack Obama is a criminal. I wrote about it in my article” “Expert” claims: birth certificate fake.

I was mildly surprised when Mr. Vogt appeared and left the following comment here on the blog:

Dear Kevin, You called me a liar without even reading my report and then told your readers that I was “just a salesman.” I have 11 years in the typesetting business and 18 years selling scanners, designing document imaging software and installing such systems in city and county offices here in the Northwest. All the scanner manufacturers and distributors know be very well. I was consulted by the Justice Department regarding the Kodak purchase of Bell & Howell two years ago. Your only experience seem to be working as a bureaucrat in vital records for the State of South Carolina so you should know that what Obama presented to the public was only a PDF of a Certificate of Live Birth and not a birth certificate. There was no paper copy with a seal presented to the US Public therefore none to examine by anyone! My expanded 22-page report is downloadable here: http://www.vectorpub.com/Obamas_Certificate_Forgery.html. I bet you cannot prove me wrong that the Obama COLB is a forgery. You also owe me an apology for unfairly calling me a liar and defaming my character and good name.

Our personal squabble is probably not of general interest, but since Mr. Vogt is the closest thing to an “expert” the birthers have, it’s worthwhile to look at what he says; however, I can prove Mr. Vogt “wrong” in his contention that the long form is a forgery quite simply: The State of Hawaii’s web site says: “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.” QED. So there is no need for me to prove that Vogt is wrong, but I will explain why he is wrong.1

Savannah Guthrie

First, though, I do need to correct something in his comment above. He said: “There was no paper copy with a seal presented to the US Public therefore none to examine by anyone!” Readers here know that NBC White House Correspondent Savannah Guthrie personally viewed the paper document and even felt the raised seal and snapped a photo. This single fact derails much of what Vogt argues since he is operating under the assumption that the PDF was exported from the Department of Health’s document imaging system (presuming such a system exists for birth certificates).

He also alludes to a difference between a “Certificate of Live Birth” and a “birth certificate.” He is confused. Learn more.

I called him a liar because he said “The birth certificate would have the imprint of the baby’s footprint, weight, length and other information such as the religion.” Do you see any footprints on any of Donald Trump’s three birth certificates? Is religion on yours? Is religion on Mr. Vogt’s birth certificate? Perhaps he could scan it for us. Note that he’s changed his story with the latest version saying instead: “Some even have religion.” The word “liar” may have been a little too strong, and if he will accept it, I will substitute the word “crank.”

My Credentials

I was a graduate assistant with the Division of Information Systems Development at Clemson University developing health information systems and I subsequently worked for the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control for 6 years. My title was “Systems Analyst” but what I did was analysis and software development. I wrote the birth certificate printing and accounting software used by the Greenville County Health Department in South Carolina. After that I spent 30 years in commercial software development, as a software developer and a manager. I was still writing commercial code at the time of my retirement in January, 2011. I wrote parts of and supervised all of the commercial software (including scanning and imaging) developed for state vital records systems in 9 states and 3 large counties.

I hold a Masters Degree in Mathematics from Clemson with an emphasis in computer science. I was a member of the of the Association for Computing Machinery for 40 years. I have presented papers at national conferences on data exchange standards and implementation of medical system interfaces. I was a consultant to the Centers for Disease Control developing  a document on best practices for data quality and I was on the CDC-sponsored committee that developed technical standards for the exchange of vital statistics data between state vital records systems and electronic health records systems. I served for two years on the Fraud Prevention Committee of the National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems (the national vital records association).

I am not a PDF expert, although I have coded some with the Adobe Acrobat API and have done imaging coding, including interfaces with scanners and digital cameras (TWAIN).

Mr. Vogt’s Credentials

I spent some time trying to assess Mr. Vogt’s credentials before I wrote my article, with little success. As someone who has hired and fired software developers for most of my career, I have learned how to read a resume, and to spot things that are missing. Reading Vogt’s “credentials” I really couldn’t tell if Mr. Vogt has ever written a line of code in his life. He takes credit for his company’s product TheRepository (a Unix-based document management system), but I do not know what his personal involvement is. As best I could tell from public information, TheRepository does have the ability to index text within a PDF file, which implied to me that someone associated with TheRepository might know how to read OCR text within a PDF. Vogt in his new document says that TheRepository does OCR using a tool set licensed from somebody else. I found nothing to tell me that Vogt has a working knowledge of PDF internals, has any experience with birth certificates, or is qualified on US constitutional law — all things he writes about with the same assertion of certainty.

As a commercial software developer for 30 years (not a bureaucrat as Vogt spuriously claims), I know that specialized functions, specifically graphics processing, OCR and PDF generation, are usually done through off-the-shelf components; it’s not cost effective to develop these in-house. I could write, for example, a program that converts BMP images to JPG images using off-the-shelf imaging components without knowing the first thing about the internal workings of either format. So there is nothing in the public record that I could find that provides any information as to whether Douglas Vogt knows anything about the internal workings of PDF creation software, and particularly that he knows the first thing about the software used by the White House to create the PDF. When I read his original report, I found technical details that I would have expected to see totally missing.

What’s missing?

The biggest and most glaring problem in Vogt’s 22-page dissertation is that he fails to identify or address the actual software used by the White House to create the PDF (and in fact he doesn’t even recognize that the White House created the PDF), and without that how could Vogt pretend to draw conclusions about what ought and what ought not to be in a legitimate document? He can’t. To my knowledge, in all the gaggle of web pages and YouTube videos, no birther has yet to try to scan a birth certificate with this software to see what happens. Vogt doesn’t even mention the PDF version; even I know the significance of that.

White House Long form PDF document properties

Step by step analysis

What I expected was to read things that a document imaging expert should know, laced with demonstration of technical savvy on the internal workings of a PDF document. What I found was a fly-speck tour of the pixels in the image with assumptions worthy of Dr. Ron Polarik. In fact, Vogt is mainly just repeating the crank ideas of other birthers. Real experts on PDF’s have pronounced the Obama long form normal (Krawetz, Fox News, National Review) and I don’t need to re-plow that ground. What I’m going to do in the next section is to point out what any technically savvy person should be able to see for themselves.

I have irrefutably proven that the Certificate of Live Birth that President Obama presented to the world on April 27, 2011 is a fraudulently created document put together using the Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator programs.

That’s the first sentence from Vogt, and we have already seen that it’s wrong. The PDF was created by Mac OS X 10.6.7 PDFContext. Not an auspicious way to start. He admits that he doesn’t know which of the two programs created the document. If he can’t tell which one, how does he know it was either — and in fact it was neither. No Adobe program created the long form PDF.

I won’t reproduce this here, but the reader can consult Vogt’s original to see that he is not only commenting on the document, he also is commenting on vital records process, birth certificates, Hawaiian and Constitutional law. He makes statements outside even his claimed expertise. I daresay that Vogt has never been inside a vital records office, except as a customer. I have. Some of what he says about vital records processing is correct and some is not. However he fundamentally does not understand what a birth certificate is. The “hospital certificate” is a souvenir, lacking any official validity. To my knowledge, no one has ever published an example of a Hawaiian hospital certificate if indeed something like it even exists. It is wrong to say that the birth certificate is copied from the hospital certificate. In this article from 1955 on Hawaiian vital statistics process, there is nothing at all about this so-called “hospital certificate” in the birth certificate process.

Vogt says:

Since we have an example [Nordyke] of a microfilmed Long Form then it is safe to say that all Certificates in that period were microfilmed and still available for inspection as well as the original paper copy. Also these Certificates were embossed with the County’s department seal (Figure 21) as well as signed.

This may be confusing to the reader. Birth certificates in state archives are not generally sealed. The seal is applied to certify a copy subsequently made from the document in the archive.

Federal requirements

Next is a rather odd section on national standards for birth certificates. Vogt says:

The law also makes it clear that the Federal Government wanted the states to computerize their source documents, which also meant scanning them into a document imaging system. In Appendix C I have highlighted in red, the important sections of the law.

and

I do not know when the Hawaii Health Department acquired and implemented a document imaging system but it had to be within two years of the enactment of this law [2004].

However, there is nothing in Appendix C that says anything about scanning and document imaging systems. It is true that many states have scanned old documents, but others with which I have personal experience have not. I know of no evidence that Hawaii has entered any old birth certificates into a document imaging system. Also, what possible reason would the State of Hawaii have for imaging their old birth certificates in response to a supposed 2004 regulation when they stopped issuing such certificates three years earlier?

Vogt continues:

One of the reasons I mentioned the Federal law is because when President Obama gave his news conference, presenting his alleged Certificate of Live Birth, he stated that they had to get special permission to get a copy of his Certificate. His statement appears to be blatantly wrong because these are public documents and he could have requested a copy himself at any time as well as his Secretary of Health and Human Services could have audited the County’s records and get a copy any time they wanted.

This is rather silly. Everybody knows that Hawaiian birth records are not “public records.” The exception granted by the Department of Health in Obama’s case is documented in the published correspondence between Obama’s attorney and the State of Hawaii. CNN reported that under normal procedures, only a non-certified copy of the long form is available. The idea that Obama could use a federal auditor to get him a certified copy of his birth certificate is ludicrous.

Keeping in mind that Vogt has not provided any reason to think that Hawaii scanned its birth certificates into an image management system, he says:

When a county or city institutes a document imaging system, it would start scanning their documents into the system. If the forms are all just type and lines, it would most likely be scanned in as binary images (black pixel or white pixel). If there are photos or other halftone graphics on the page, it may be scanned in as a grayscale which consists of 256 levels of gray going from 0 for white to 256 for black. If there is color on the documents, they may scan them in as color images, but color images are large and impractical to store lots of them on the server. The legitimate forms done by the Hawaii Board of Health were scanned in using both grayscale and binary modes. The reason I know this is because I found both methods used on the forms. You cannot have both on an original scanned image from an original.

Of course 0-256 is nonsense; it would be 0-255. He says “You cannot have both on an original scanned image from an original” but this just displays his ignorance of how PDF creation software works. PDF optimization software, such as Adobe Acrobat does exactly this kind of separation.

Obama’s paper long form was either scanned  and printed or photocopied onto security paper and the result stamped and certified on April 25, 2011. I have yet to see any reason to think that it was printed from a document imaging system. The fact that the images show the curvature of the bound volume argues strongly against the image coming from a document imaging system, since if whole volumes had been scanned, they would have taken it apart. I’m sure Mr. Vogt knows that in high-volume scanning operations, sheet-fed scanners are used, which requires unbinding the documents. We’re talking about over half a million birth certificates for Hawaii.

I’m going to skip over a lot of what he says at this point because it all hinges on the long form image coming from a document imaging system, and there’s no reason to think that happened.

1. Curved and non-curved type

The next section talks about the curvature of letters. The left side of the long-form birth certificate looks like it was scanned from a book, and was not laid perfectly flat. What Vogt says is that the curvature of the type doesn’t match the curvature of the form, or put another way, some of the words in a vertical column are curved and some are not.

This sounds implausible on the face of it. First if the document were a forgery, why curve it at all? No other published Hawaiian birth certificate image is curved like that. Why make something unusual? Second, for some letters to be curved and others not, each set of letters would have to be individually curved, which is silly. If someone were going to make a fake, they would create the whole document square and then apply the curve to the section to be curved.

What Vogt shows is a highly-magnified section where he has drawn a red line to lead the eye to think the word is not curved. A single straight line through what should be both curved and non-curved text leads the viewer to ignore the small curvature in the part that should be curved.  Further, one need spend but a moment looking at the document to see wide variation in the vertical placement of letters. The kind of precision necessary to make a determination of the curvature of a couple of letters is simply not there. If one looks at the “M” in “Male” by itself, it is obviously curved and not aligned with the red line Vogt drew under it.

When Vogt’s straight red line is replaced with a line curved identically to the line below the text, the illusion goes away:

From White House press photocopy

2. There is a white haloing around all the type on the form.

One of the basic errors Vogt made, and I should have commented on it earlier, was to suggest that images in the PDF were in the TIFF format (a compressed format that exactly preserves the image). It isn’t. The color background layer is a highly compressed, and lossy JPEG file. That’s why the long form images have “halos” around the letters and Vogt’s sample images don’t.

3. The Obama Certificate is loaded with both binary and grayscale letters

This is normal. PDF document optimization software isolates the background image (what’s not black) and stores it as a lossy JPEG file. It then makes bitmaps of the black part. In a few cases what we consider black was not quite black enough and was considered part of the background. This is what Adobe calls “adaptive optimization” described as:

Adaptive Divides each page into black-and-white, grayscale, and color regions and chooses a representation that preserves appearance while highly compressing each type of content. The recommended scanning resolutions are 300 dots per inch (dpi) for grayscale and RGB input, or 600 dpi for black-and-white input.

Of course we aren’t dealing with Adobe software with the President’s certificate. Other PDF software creates color and grayscale layers in different ways.

4. The Sequential Number is a fraud.

Enough has been written here about that. See for example: Obama’s birth certificate number.

5. Two different colors and font sizes in Form box 22 and 20

This is just the separation of almost black in the background to bitmap for the foreground text. Also note that since these are zoomed in images beyond the resolution of the document, a lot of the pixels we’re seeing are made up interpolations. You can see the left-over bits on the background (and tell me with a straight face that a human would create something like this):

Long form optimized background image (click to enlarge)

6. The official seal is not part of the Certificate of Live Birth.

I’m not sure what that title means. Vogt writes:

Figure 19 shows Obama’s seal on the COLB presented on April 27, 2011 is visible only because a color filter was used to see it, otherwise it completely disappears in the design of the security paper (Figure 20).

Good job on your figure 19, which brings out the seal in the PDF image.

Doug Vogt image of long form seal under color filter

It’s hard to see here, but the top of the seal is running through the top of blocks 20-21. The main problem with Vogt’s Figure 20 which is supposed to show the lack of distortion in the text due to the seal, is that it crops the main spot where text intercepts seal at the top of Blocks 20-21. I looked at my own state-sealed birth certificate under a magnifying glass. I didn’t see distortion, but I did see that the ink had flaked off in a couple of spots there the seal was impressed. When I look at the long form, I can see a couple of places where the ink might have flaked off too — but such things are somewhat subjective.

Vogt talks about “TXE” on the rubber stamp and thinks the stamp was applied too straight (like the Department of Health wouldn’t be careful on a document to go around the world). However, this is another of Vogt’s red line illusions. When you look at the his image with small grid lines, it’s obvious that the stamp is slightly raised on the right, not “perfect” as Vogt claims. For example compare the top line letter “R” in “CERTIFY” with the same letter in “OR.”

 

Click to view at full size (1098 x 153)

8. Multiple layers in the PDF file from the White House.

This is another one fully discussed before. I just refer folks to Krawetz’s page. However, Vogt does say a couple of interesting things:

The only rebuttal to the nine layers discovered in the PDF file released by the White House was a statement from a Canadian graphic artists from Quebec by the name of Jean-Claude Tremblay on April 29.

There are actually 3 I know of including Fox News item, one in National Review, and Dr. Krawetz’s page. Then Vogt says:

First of all the Obama PDF certificate was supposed to have come directly from the Health Departments office.

But this is silly. All the reports say that the Department of Health sent two paper copies with stamp and seal, not a PDF. One need only look at the PDF itself to see that the creation date was April 27, the day of the White House press conference (the PDF is time stamped after the press conference, by the way). That was two days after the Department of Health printed and certified it.

Vogt then says:

My qualifications on OCR programs are considerable. … The text file and matrix files would never be seen as separate layers and there is certainly no nine layers. The three files would be in a PDF “wrapper” and that’s all. All OCR programs work on the same principle.

Does Vogt not even know that there is no OCR data in the Obama long form PDF?

The short of it is that PDF optimization (such as that done by Adobe Acrobat) separates the foreground from the background saving the background in a lossy JPG format, and then it generates bitmaps for different foreground regions of the form in varying resolutions.

So now you know, courtesy of the Hawaii Department of Health that Douglas Vogt is wrong, and I hope I have shown you why.

Update:

For the benefit of the reader who hasn’t read Mr. Vogt original paper, I will add some comments about other things he says that are not related to the long form birth certificate.

Vogt makes a big deal about the affidavit of Tim Adams, an elections clerk in Hawaii. Adams says that some unnamed person at the Honolulu Elections Division told him that Obama had no long form birth certificate. Whether this conversation is true or not, the Honolulu Elections Division does not have access to birth records, and so Adams’ comment contains no valid information, and is in direct contradiction to what the Hawaii Department of Health has said in public since 2008.

Vogt then says that the 1961 newspaper announcements of Obama’s birth are not proof because the State of Hawaii registers out of state births. However, Hawaii only started that practice (law passed) in 1982, so Vogt is wrong. Vogt claims that his previous experience with tax law makes him qualified to comment on Hawaii statutes, and in particular that Barack Obama is guilty of forgery. So if he is telling the truth about his qualifications, then he must be lying about his comment on Hawaiian law. (Actually it’s his qualifications that are really impeached here.)

Related articles:


1This reminds me of an experience in high school. The algebra teacher presented a mathematical “proof” on the blackboard that 1 = 2. Of course, we didn’t try to prove that the answer was wrong, but why his reasoning was defective.

Print Friendly

, , , , , , , , , ,

343 Responses to Reply to Douglas Vogt (Updated)

  1. avatar
    richCares May 31, 2011 at 9:24 pm #

    Doc, what a polite way of calling Vogt a liar, well done!
    Most Birther experts were never Perts in the first place, so how can they be ex-Perts?

  2. avatar
    gorefan May 31, 2011 at 9:26 pm #

    “No other published Hawaiian birth certificate image is curved. ”

    The Nordyke’s has the same curved left edge. And you can see how they pre-signed and dated a quarter sheet of paper to lay on the glass plate of the photostat machine. There is an overexposed edge along the left edge that continues along the top of the quarter sheet.

  3. avatar
    richCares May 31, 2011 at 9:34 pm #

    gorefan offers more proof why Vogt is a skumnull!

  4. avatar
    gorefan May 31, 2011 at 9:37 pm #

    By the way this was an excellant analysis of Mr. Vogt’s failure. So, he said that the BC should have a footprint and then he used the Nordyke’s BC as an example and fails to notice that there is no footprint. What a moron.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 31, 2011 at 9:49 pm #

    gorefan: By the way this was an excellant analysis of Mr. Vogt’s failure. So, he said that the BC should have a footprint and then he used the Nordyke’s BC as an example and fails to notice that there is no footprint. What a moron.

    Well, he apparently doesn’t think the Nordyke document is an original birth certificate, but rather an abstract the hospital made from a putative “real” hospital certificate, which no one has yet published. It’s plausible that Hawaiian hospitals give out souvenir birth certificates. I saw one of my own once, but it appears that the only value to this distinction is to let Vogt engage in some wordplay to deny that Obama showed an original birth certificate.

  6. avatar
    Rickey May 31, 2011 at 9:49 pm #

    “When I read something a real expert writes, I expect to learn something.”

    Doc, I learned a lot from your essay. Thanks!

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 31, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    Rickey: Doc, I learned a lot from your essay. Thanks!

    But, but, but, I’m not an expert!

  8. avatar
    Reality Check May 31, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    it is odd that WND is using Vogt to provide his ridiculous analysis of the PDF image when their own reporter, Les Kinsolving, has not provided any comments. Kinsolving should have been able to view the certified copy at the White House on April 27.

  9. avatar
    Bill May 31, 2011 at 10:18 pm #

    Wow. Twenty-two pages. Impressive.

    And of course the bottom line, as you have noted, is that this is a pdf file, a copy of the official paper document. I like how Vogt tries to inject relevancy to the pdf file by falsely claiming that it was produced by the Hawaii Department of Health.

    Well played, all around. Too bad your argument’s foundation is created on lies, Mr. Vogt.

    Perhaps you should stick to your day job.

  10. avatar
    marshal May 31, 2011 at 10:22 pm #

    The curvature is not as Vogt says, but its not as you say either. And did you omit the FBI part of Vogts complaint/22 page presentation?

  11. avatar
    Joey May 31, 2011 at 10:32 pm #

    But…but…but…Vogt’s “expert” analysis is being used to file a criminal complaint. Everyone should expect to see Barack Hussein Obama II “perp-walked” into federal court any day now (unless the rapture happens first).

  12. avatar
    marshal May 31, 2011 at 10:34 pm #

    Gov Abercrombie pledged to find the doc, he failed.

    To answer why a hypothetical forger might have made a sloppy forgery- it might have been meant to be exposed. Our Presidents are disposable puppets,

  13. avatar
    john May 31, 2011 at 10:37 pm #

    That’s right Marshal. According to Dr. Corsi, a “mole” later discovered that Obama’s long-form BC has been placed in the bound book.

    [However, Doug Vogt claims that the document is not in the bound book at all, but only in an imaging system that he invented. Hey, I thought I banned you. Doc.]

  14. avatar
    richCares May 31, 2011 at 10:37 pm #

    “Any Day Now” Corsi, go push that PAYPAL marshall, quickly now.
    almost 3 years of “Any Day Now” from Corsi is enough!

  15. avatar
    gorefan May 31, 2011 at 10:42 pm #

    marshal: Our Presidents are disposable puppets,

    Do you mean the Lizard Overlords have decided he is expendable?

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 31, 2011 at 10:45 pm #

    marshal: The curvature is not as Vogt says, but its not as you say either. And did you omit the FBI part of Vogts complaint/22 page presentation?

    I stopped responding when he reached his “Conclusion”. I didn’t see anything to respond to about the FBI. He claims that the document on the White House web site had been replaced and is dated the 28th. This is not true. The document on the White House as of this moment has the same creation date as the one I showed in my article, 12:09:24 PM on April 27. So I have no idea what Vogt is looking at.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 31, 2011 at 10:49 pm #

    marshal: Gov Abercrombie pledged to find the doc, he failed.

    To answer why a hypothetical forger might have made a sloppy forgery- it might have been meant to be exposed. Our Presidents are disposable puppets,

    Whatever.

  18. avatar
    gorefan May 31, 2011 at 11:00 pm #

    I know that the Susan Nordyke’s BC is not as high a resolution as the President’s, but it looks like the word female and Kapiolani do not follow the curving lines.

  19. avatar
    Joey May 31, 2011 at 11:14 pm #

    marshal:
    Gov Abercrombie pledged to find the doc, he failed.

    To answer why a hypothetical forger might have made a sloppy forgery- it might have been meant to be exposed. Our Presidents are disposable puppets,

    According to the previous Republican administration in Hawaii of Governor Linda Lingle, they had moved the bound volume that contained the Obama long form to a more secure location. When there was a change of administration in Hawaii on December 7, 2010, the new Democratic administration in Hawaii of Neil Abercrombie didn’t get the memo on the location change.
    Our “disposable puppet” presidents can be fired after four years (as was Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush) or term limited out of office after eight years (as was Bill Clinton and George W. Bush).
    Since both a Republican administration and a Democratic Administration in Hawaii have vouched for the authenticity of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth records, I don’t see any court of law or any congressional committee not taking their word for it. The Republican administration even went as far as to name the birth hospital and to declare Barack Obama a “natural born citizen.”

  20. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 31, 2011 at 11:20 pm #

    *APPLAUDS*

    Doc, this was super duper. thank you.

  21. avatar
    Epectitus May 31, 2011 at 11:24 pm #

    Just a few notes to flesh out Doug Vogt’s resume. It appears that, by training, he is a geologist. In fact, this is his own description of himself on a website where he self publishes fringe “science” and religion books.

    http://www.vectorpub.com/Reality_Revealed.html

    “Douglas Vogt is a geologist and science philosopher. He has funded and directed three expeditions to the Sinai desert where he was the first person since Baruch (Jeremiah’s grandson) to discover the real Mount Sinai. He discovered all the altars that Moses describes in the Torah. In addition he was the first person since Moses to see the real Abraham’s altar also located at Mount Sinai and not in Jerusalem. He has discovered the code systems used by Moses when writing the surface story of the Torah, which enabled him to decode the Torah and other earlier books of the Hebrew Scriptures.”

    In short… Douglas Vogt is a bit of a generalized crackpot. His foray into Birthistan is simply the latest in a long line of similar fringe ideas.

  22. avatar
    SluggoJD May 31, 2011 at 11:33 pm #

    Epectitus:
    Just a few notes to flesh out Doug Vogt’sresume. It appears that, by training, he is a geologist. In fact, this is his own description of himself on a website where he self publishes fringe “science” and religion books.

    http://www.vectorpub.com/Reality_Revealed.html

    “Douglas Vogt is a geologist and science philosopher. He has funded and directed three expeditions to the Sinai desert where he was the first person since Baruch (Jeremiah’s grandson) to discover the real Mount Sinai. He discovered all the altars that Moses describes in the Torah. In addition he was the first person since Moses to see the real Abraham’s altar also located at Mount Sinai and not in Jerusalem. He has discovered the code systems used by Moses when writing the surface story of the Torah, which enabled him to decode the Torah and other earlier books of the Hebrew Scriptures.”

    In short… Douglas Vogt is a bit of a generalized crackpot. His foray into Birthistan is simply the latest in a long line of similar fringe ideas.

    LOLOL, the first person since Moses to….what? WTF?

  23. avatar
    gorefan May 31, 2011 at 11:44 pm #

    Epectitus: he was the first person since Baruch (Jeremiah’s grandson) to discover the real Mount Sinai.

    I wonder if he is also a crytozoologist?

  24. avatar
    thorswitch June 1, 2011 at 12:34 am #

    Maybe so, but you at least admit that and share what you *do* know which I know has helped me find a decent “starting” point to learn and fill in some of he gaps.

  25. avatar
    obsolete June 1, 2011 at 12:37 am #

    How do we know Vogt is talking about the real Moses if he doesn’t show us Moses’ birth certificate?
    The footy/hospital version will do, I suppose.

  26. avatar
    Hawaiiborn June 1, 2011 at 3:35 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It’s plausible that Hawaiian hospitals give out souvenir birth certificates. I saw one of my own once, but it appears that the only value to this distinction is to let Vogt engage in some wordplay to deny that Obama showed an original birth certificate.

    I can say from my own experience, is that t he hospital I was born at, did not offer or give out “souvenir” Birth Certificates. So, no I dont have a BC from the hospital that has my baby footprints.

    However, my cousin born a year later than I, at a different hospital, received her baby footprint hospital certificate (I wont call it a Birht Certificate, because its nothing of the sort). All it had on it:

    Her name,
    Her weight
    Her birth date (not even a time)
    Her footprints

    No parents name, no signature from a doctor, no witness, no time of birth.

    And not every hospital offered the same type of souvenir certificate.

    So why would the Hospital certificate be more legally valid, which has less information, not even signed by a doctor/parents, be more valid than the one at the Health Department?

  27. avatar
    Suranis June 1, 2011 at 4:07 am #

    Birthers tend to get very irate when people question their Qualifications. It seems to be a rather unique trait.

  28. avatar
    US Citizen June 1, 2011 at 4:56 am #

    Vogt says “256 levels of gray going from 0 for white to 256 for black.”

    From what I understand, there’s 256 levels of grayscale, but if it includes zero, it would probably only go up to 255.
    Of course, none of this makes any real difference here, but I thought I’d mention that 8 bits can only convey 256 discrete values and zero IS a number.

    As for Vogt, his reputation is dependent on his own claims.
    If he’s going to make crazy statements, people may think he’s crazy.
    Additionally, if he’s going to claim that any of the officially released BCs are fake, he is in essence calling many officials liars.
    Since I don’t think it’s reasonable to believe such officials lied, I have to instead think Vogt is nuts or a liar himself.
    He deserves a bad reputation in my opinion.

  29. avatar
    The Magic M June 1, 2011 at 6:38 am #

    > The algebra teacher presented a mathematical “proof” on the blackboard that 1 = 2.

    Well, the con artists are very good at dividing by zero and the birthers are very good at ignoring it, even when pointed to the part of the equation that looks non-zero but isn’t.

    > Wow. Twenty-two pages. Impressive.

    If you subtract all the “non-expert” parts (personal opinion, repetition of birther allegations, drivel, things he has no expertise in), it actually falls behind what many birther sites have already done wrt PDF “analysis”. It’s more like a compilation of some birther points enhanced with “I am a super-expert”, but I didn’t see any new points.

  30. avatar
    Northland10 June 1, 2011 at 7:58 am #

    What I have presented is irrefutably proof

    That one statement, if attempted in an academic or peer-reviewed essay, would have destroyed any chances of it every being taken seriously. Even if the proof was “irrefutable,” most readers and critics would refute everything, just to lay low the arrogance of that opening statement.

    “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.”

  31. avatar
    Scientist June 1, 2011 at 7:58 am #

    In the end, all attempts to analyze the document, no matter how expert the analyst (and Mr Vogt does not appear very expert) are limited by the lack of a validated control. Suppose one were asked to verify a Birfestani dinar banknote. One could hire an acknowledged banknote expert, say a 20 year veteran of the Secret Service. He could very likely tell you what paper, ink, type of press, etc. were used to produce the Birfestani bill. However, in order to determine if it is fake or real, he would need either a verified Birfestani banknote for comparison or a description from the Bank of Birfestan as to exactly how they produce their currency.

    So, in the case of a birth certificate, we can only compare Obama’s to a verified Hawaiian birth certificate produced by the same process. Of course, since his was a one-off done under an exception to the normal procedures, there is no such exemplar. Any feature one might note in the document is simply an observation, since there is no way to know whether a “real” birth certificate would or would not have that feature. Nor, without knowing the actual procedures used in the Registrar’s office in 1961, is there a way to know whether births were numbered in the order received at the office, the order of the actual event, alphabetically over some time period or randomly. Therefore, one cannot say definitively whether the number on Obama;s certificate is “correct” or “incorrect”. I’m not even sure DOH could add much to the discussion, since it’s not clear whether they can say with certainty how the office worked in 1961.

    At the end of the day, attempts by outside experts to verify or falsify the document run up against the lack of a clear positive control. in effect, the Obama birth certificate is its own standard. In the end, all attempts to analyze the document, no matter how expert the analyst (and Mr Vogt does not appear very expert) are limited by the lack of a validated control. Suppose one were asked to verify a Birfestani dinar banknote. One could hire an acknowledged banknote expert, say a 20 year veteran of the Secret Service. He could very likely tell you what paper, ink, type of press, etc. were used to produce the Birfestani bill. However, in order to determine if it is fake or real, he would need either a verified Birfestani banknote for comparison or a description from the Bank of Birfestan as to exactly how they produce their currency.

    So, in the case of a birth certificate, we can only compare Obama’s to a verified Hawaiian birth certificate produced by the same process. Of course, since his was a one-off done under an exception to the normal procedures, there is no such exemplar. Any feature one might note in the document is simply an observation, since there is no way to know whether a “real” birth certificate would or would not have that feature. Nor, without knowing the actual procedures used in the Registrar’s office in 1961, is there a way to know whether births were numbered in the order received at the office, the order of the actual event, alphabetically over some time period or randomly. Therefore, one cannot say definitively whether the number on Obama;s certificate is “correct” or “incorrect”. I’m not even sure DOH could add much to the discussion, since it’s not clear whether they can say with certainty how the office worked in 1961.

    At the end of the day, attempts by outside experts to verify or falsify the document run up against the lack of a clear positive control. in effect, the Obama birth certificate is its own standard. You either believe large numbers of senior Hawaiian officials are willing to be involved in a criminal conspiracy for no discernable reason or you believe they produced the certificate as they have said. Forensic science really can’t sort out those two possibilities. I think the lack of a coherent story as to what the motivation for such a vast conspiracy might be is certainly informative, though.

  32. avatar
    Scientist June 1, 2011 at 8:04 am #

    Northland10: What I have presented is irrefutably proof
    That one statement, if attempted in an academic or peer-reviewed essay, would have destroyed any chances of it every being taken seriously. Even if the proof was “irrefutable,” most readers and critics would refute everything, just to lay low the arrogance of that opening statement.
    “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.”

    Since science holds ALL theories to be potentially falsifiable, there are no “Irrefutable” proofs in science.

  33. avatar
    The Magic M June 1, 2011 at 8:38 am #

    > Forensic science really can’t sort out those two possibilities.

    While many birthers are still deluding themselves on the “he forged the LFBC” meme, it makes perfect sense for them to assume the actual document in the Hawaiian archive differs from what he presented to the public. So in that hypothetical scenario, forensic analysis of the original in the archives would give more results (such as a hypothetical “it’s not the same as what Obama showed” or “it’s a forgery because the ink was not produced before 1980″).
    However, since such a scenario is (very very) unlikely, it is safe to assume any such “forensic analysis” would simply conclude the two documents match and that the original was created “sometime around 1960″ (as no analysis will be able to pinpoint the exact year, let alone day).

    But we all know birthers wouldn’t be “done” then – after all, a lot of them has already adopted the theory that either Hawaii was complicit in creating wrong data back in 1961 or, alternatively, that they were somehow “duped” by the Obamas or, yet alternatively, they were so lax back then that they didn’t really care.

    So even a forensic analysis of the “real original original” in the archives would only end up in birthers claiming “the data was never correct to begin with” and “we want to see the hospital records confirming what’s in the BC” – and feel free to take it from there all the way back to the start, just replace “birth certificate” with “hospital records”. I mean, even if those still existed and were verified to be unforged, birfers would still claim someone wrote down the wrong data in the records (on purpose, because he was duped etc.).

    Conclusion: no amount of verification or analysis will ever satisfy the birthers.

    So why are they demanding it? Simple: because they are convinced that at some step, a “smoking gun” will be uncovered. At some step, they will find something “provably forged” or “obviously untrue”.

    That’s about as deluded as believing that if you had the opportunity to endlessly appeal a court decision, somewhere down the road you’d find a judge who’ll finally rule in your favour. And I think that’s called querulatory disorder. ;)

  34. avatar
    The Magic M June 1, 2011 at 8:40 am #

    > Since science holds ALL theories to be potentially falsifiable, there are no “Irrefutable” proofs in science.

    And thus it’s irrefutably (*g*) proven that Vogt does not rely on science but on conspiracy theories – after all, those are irrefutable by design. ;)

  35. avatar
    Wayne June 1, 2011 at 9:19 am #

    One comment with regard to the picture captioned “Long form optimized background image,” There is an interesting pattern here.

    Inked formations (e.g., a letter, a check box, a signature) that touch a vertical or horizontal line are visible. (That is, the lines that form the fields of the birth certificate.)

    Letters, check boxes and handwriting that do not touch a field line are missing (with a few exceptions).

    So, in general, the ink on the birth certificate divide up into two layers: 1) lines plus anything touching a line and 2) anything not touching a line.

    What this means, if anything, I don’t know.

  36. avatar
    Scientist June 1, 2011 at 9:30 am #

    The Magic M: But we all know birthers wouldn’t be “done” then – after all, a lot of them has already adopted the theory that either Hawaii was complicit in creating wrong data back in 1961 or, alternatively, that they were somehow “duped” by the Obamas or, yet alternatively, they were so lax back then that they didn’t really care.

    But then we come back to a simple truth. People commit fraud to obtain things they aren’t entitled to, not to obtain things they have a perfect legal right to. Those under 21 may make false IDs in order to drink; those 21 and older don’t.

    We have been through this before here. The laws in 1961 (as they do today) made provisions for US citizens who had children abroad under circumstances where the children did not become citizens at birth. They would simply have to bring the child into the US, something that any citizen can always do with a minor child, And once here, they would get a Certificate of Citizenship for the child, who would then be a citizen under a simple and completely legal process.

    Those who claim some fraud in 1961 have never faced the fact that their supposed crime lacks any semblance of a motive.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 1, 2011 at 9:40 am #

    Wayne: What this means, if anything, I don’t know.

    The optimization is supposed to separate foreground from background. One would expect that every artifact one sees is the result of the particular separation algorithm used. BTW, this image is just one of the layers from the Obama long form PDF.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 1, 2011 at 9:50 am #

    The Magic M: However, since such a scenario is (very very) unlikely, it is safe to assume any such “forensic analysis” would simply conclude the two documents match and that the original was created “sometime around 1960‘ (as no analysis will be able to pinpoint the exact year, let alone day).

    One of the problems with the whole birther story is that there are TWO records of Obama’s birth in the HDoH files. One is the computer record which was entered some time before 2001 when the HDoH went paperless. Then there is the paper document.

    We have certified copies of both.

    I cannot speak to the specific computer software used by HDoH (they developed their own), but similar software I am familiar with would not all an operator to enter a birth for a prior year unless it was marked “delayed” or it was entered by an official with special access rights. If the software were well-designed, every record entered is marked according to who entered it and when it was entered.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 1, 2011 at 9:55 am #

    gorefan: “No other published Hawaiian birth certificate image is curved. ”

    The Nordyke’s has the same curved left edge.

    I said “not curved like Obama’s”. I found the Nordyke curve to be much less pronounced than the Obama curve. Others are not curved at all.

  40. avatar
    milspec June 1, 2011 at 9:58 am #

    A few years back I was QC manager of the last big producer of baby footprint systems for hospital use. Thirty years ago they sold well as a backup ID system for hospital use as well as for the production of “keepsake” items for parents. Modern baby ID systems has rendered the foot printer obsolete and there are now only used as a method for making the keepsake certificate

    Footnote
    During the last production run, we asked the LAPD and the LA county sheriffs office for help in validating the latest batch for fingerprint interpretation of the imprint. No luck the last imprinter finger print man had retired and all the Dept. now use scanners for taking prints..

  41. avatar
    Thrifty June 1, 2011 at 10:35 am #

    Fantastic article, Doc, and I’m only halfway through it so far. To this point:

    This sounds implausible on the face of it. First if the document were a forgery, why curve it at all? No other published Hawaiian birth certificate image is curved like that. Why make something unusual?

    That I think is one of the best pieces of evidence that the LFBC is authentic. If I wanted to forge a vital record, I wouldn’t make it look all funny and have curvy lines on the edge. I’d make it look like any other certificate, full of perfectly straight lines. Just like if I were going to give birth to some child, raise him as a radical Muslim, then plant him as a secret agent Manchuran-candidate president, I wouldn’t give him an unorthodox name. I’d go for the blandest name I could, like “John Miller” or something.

  42. avatar
    Reality Check June 1, 2011 at 10:53 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I said “not curved like Obama’s”. I found the Nordyke curve to be much less pronounced than the Obama curve. Others are not curved at all.

    The Nordyke certificates are curved on the left also but one reason the curvature is different because they were copied with a photostat machine that is essentially a camera so the perspective view of a lens would change the way the curvature is displayed as opposed to a modern copier/scanner. I think i can detect the curvature at the bottom is actually reversed as you would expect if the lens field of view would be centered on the document. There are other factors of course that would affect the amount of curvature such as how hard the book is pressed against the glass on the copier. Anyone who has ever copied a book or magazine would understand that. If I were the one doing the copying I would be more careful with a binder full of 50 year old brittle records in 2011 vs. 1966 when the Nordyke copies were made.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 1, 2011 at 11:00 am #

    I have added a video to the end of this article that summarizes my conclusions about the Vogt letter.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFSgG_cBNvE

    Here’s another relevant analysis:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgI0tcGcP-Q

  44. avatar
    Suranis June 1, 2011 at 11:23 am #

    Musical interlude

    All: Who controls the British crown?
    Who keeps the metric system down?
    We do! We do!
    Karl: Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
    Lenny: Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
    Alien: We do! We do!
    All: Who holds back the electric car?
    Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
    We do! We do!
    Skinner: Who robs cavefish of their sight?
    Homer: Who rigs every Oscar night?
    All: We do! We do!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSpOjj4YD8c

  45. avatar
    squee June 1, 2011 at 11:26 am #

    You, my dear Doc, are the bees knees :)

  46. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 1, 2011 at 11:35 am #

    US Citizen: Vogt says “256 levels of gray going from 0 for white to 256 for black.”

    From what I understand, there’s 256 levels of grayscale, but if it includes zero, it would probably only go up to 255.
    Of course, none of this makes any real difference here, but I thought I’d mention that 8 bits can only convey 256 discrete values and zero IS a number.

    Not to mention that in most computer scales (I’m not going to say every one, just to be sure), 0 is black, and 255 is white, rather than the other way around. It makes no sense that they’d do it the other way around. This tells me that this guy really has no idea what he’s talking about, but throwing random words together to hopefully make sense.

  47. avatar
    Bovril June 1, 2011 at 1:41 pm #

    Am I the only one who, when they first read the first sentence of Doc C’s post

    “Douglas Vogt, president of a company that sells scanners and scanner software, ”

    Actually read it as

    Douglas Vogt, president of a company that sells scammers spamming software,

  48. avatar
    DP June 1, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    Brutally effective.

    Well done.

  49. avatar
    ellid June 1, 2011 at 2:50 pm #

    Northland10: That one statement, if attempted in an academic or peer-reviewed essay, would have destroyed any chances of it every being taken seriously.

    No kidding. I found a piece of evidence that refuted a long-standing theory on the origins of a certain popular needlework technique. I wrote a peer, sent it to an academic journal, and had to sent right back for that very reason. I had to show *why* my evidence was correct, plus show why alternate theories were either implausible or impossible.

    It took me a year, correspondence with two Italian textile experts, a Hungarian conservation report, and a co-worker’s visit to Budapest to visit his parents before I was able to do so. Then, and ONLY then, was the article accepted for publication…and no, it will not say that I have now definitively proved my case, only that I have *probably* proved my case.

    This Vogt fellow is an idiot.

  50. avatar
    US Citizen June 1, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    Expelliarmus:

    There is a standard, and the standard is that a RGB color value of 00-00-00 is pure black and the color value FF-FF-FF or 255-255-255 is pure white.

    That is the HTML standard as well as many others.
    But black being 00 and white being FF go back to the origins of home computers.
    Even on a 30+ year old Apple II, if one pokes a high res screen memory location with FF, it’ll be white; 00 will be black.

  51. avatar
    Suranis June 1, 2011 at 5:26 pm #

    US Citizen: That is the HTML standard as well as many others.
    But black being 00 and white being FF go back to the origins of home computers.
    Even on a 30+ year old Apple II, if one pokes a high res screen memory location with FF, it’ll be white; 00 will be black.

    Hmm, I seem to remember doing home programming on my Commodore VIC-20 and Sinclair Spectrum, and I think 0 was black and 255 was white, with a whole range of colors in between. Can’t be 100% positive, but I its definably a strong memory.

  52. avatar
    richCares June 1, 2011 at 6:36 pm #

    “0 was black and 255 was white,”
    very true and today as well (as identified in PaintShop)
    …..0 = black
    …..255= white

  53. avatar
    Greg June 1, 2011 at 6:39 pm #

    Wikipedia says that regardless of the bit depth, 0 is always black and the maximum value is always white.

    I wonder if there’s an industry standard (ANSI?) that controls.

  54. avatar
    Nick Lamb June 1, 2011 at 6:51 pm #

    OK, few TIFF comments, including something relevant to the mapping of numbers to shades of black/white. I’m a programmer I wrote some TIFF software back in the day.

    TIFF is very nearly not a format at all. It was dreamed up by scanner vendors years ago and they couldn’t agree on almost anything, so every parameter they could think of is variable. Does the image start in the bottom right and go anti-clockwise? Or maybe top left? Is black zero, or is white zero? Is the data uncompressed? Does it use the Deflate algorithm? Or does it use JPEG (yes, before there were .JPG images, called JFIF by experts, you could use the same compression in TIFF, albeit not very compatibly). Every such parameter is explicitly spelled out using a series of “tags” (hence the T in TIFF) at the start of the file, and most of a TIFF program is just examining all the tags and figuring out how to process the rest of the data so that you get the intended image (and not e.g. upside down or with red and blue swapped)

    So there you go, in an actual TIFF at least, white might be zero. If so there’s a tag somewhere which tells the displaying computer about that, and a correct implementation will notice the tag and sort things out appropriately.

  55. avatar
    richCares June 1, 2011 at 7:03 pm #

    according to Corsi, Vogt sent this diatribe off to the FBI in a formal complaint to be considered a crime (or is that KRIME), they say the FBI trash was a bit larger today.

  56. avatar
    Rickey June 1, 2011 at 7:25 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: But, but, but, I’m not an expert!

    Okay, but compared to Vogt…

  57. avatar
    Marshal June 1, 2011 at 7:45 pm #

    Your pronouncements on the curvature still dont conform to reality. Hand waving it off wont do, Relying on Hawaiian officials is in bad form too, tsk tsk, We expected better from you. Get right down to it Doc- we are counting on you… DC is laughing.

  58. avatar
    Daniel June 1, 2011 at 8:18 pm #

    Any IT professional know that 256, 128, 64, 32, 16, and 8 are the decimal equivalent magic AMOUNTS.

    Any IT professional knows that the whole numbers associated with those magic amounts is 0 -x, i.e 0 to 255.

    Any person that suggests that 0 to 256 is a valid reference, is not an expert by any stretch. The valid range of 0 t0 255 is so intensely ingrained in the IT culture that even seeing the phrase “0 for white to 256 for black” just looks wrong from first glance.

    And while it is technically possible for a programmer to use the range “0 for white to 255 (note the number) for black”, doing so would mean that same programmer would have to write ALL of his own graphics modules and libraries from scratch. I can guarantee you that programmers are far too lazy and sensible to do that. So essentially we have to glaring and boundary shifting errors that no expert would make… in one phrase.

    Any person who would use the phrase “256 levels of gray going from 0 for white to 256 for black” is essentially ignorant of the subject matter of computer graphics, let alone being an expert.

  59. avatar
    Majority Will June 1, 2011 at 9:07 pm #

    Marshal: Relying on Hawaiian officials is in bad form too

    Accusing state officials of impropriety or malfeasance or even implying such without credible evidence is despicable as well as bad form.

  60. avatar
    Joey June 1, 2011 at 9:28 pm #

    Marshal:
    Your pronouncements on the curvature still dont conform to reality.Hand waving it off wont do,Relying on Hawaiian officials is inbad form too, tsk tsk, We expectedbetter from you. Get right down to it Doc- we are counting on you… DC is laughing.

    The only document that matters constitutionally is the original document, not internet scanned copies of that document. The state of Hawaii has put its “full faith and credit” (see Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution) behind the original long form birth certificate and the original short form Certification of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama. No court of law will dispute the full faith and credit of the state of Hawaii.
    At any point in time, a congressional committee could subpoena the original Obama birth records and compel witnesses from the government of Hawaii along with expert witnesses on document authentification to testify under oath with the threat of perjury before Congress hanging over their heads.
    Counting both the House and Senate, there are currently 287 Republicans in Congress, not one of them has called for a congressional investigation of Obama’s birth records.
    “The state of Hawaii has said that he was born there, that’s good enough for me.”–Representative John Boehner, Speaker of the House
    “The President was, in fact, born at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. It’s been established, he was born here.”–[Former] Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI)

  61. avatar
    Ragout June 1, 2011 at 10:33 pm #

    Daniel:

    Any person that suggests that 0 to 256 is a valid reference, is not an expert by any stretch.

    Another Obot fail! If you knew anything about document imaging systems, you’d know that the 256 possible 8-bit integers run from 0 to 256. That’s because in modern computers, the binary number 1101 is interpreted as 14, skipping unlucky 13. It’s a well-known fact that every hardware company whose machines treated 1101 as 13 eventually went bust (e.g., Digital, Wang, Atari, etc.)

  62. avatar
    Paul June 1, 2011 at 10:42 pm #

    Epectitus:
    Just a few notes to flesh out Doug Vogt’sresume. It appears that, by training, he is a geologist. In fact, this is his own description of himself on a website where he self publishes fringe “science” and religion books.

    http://www.vectorpub.com/Reality_Revealed.html

    “Douglas Vogt is a geologist and science philosopher. He has funded and directed three expeditions to the Sinai desert where he was the first person since Baruch (Jeremiah’s grandson) to discover the real Mount Sinai. He discovered all the altars that Moses describes in the Torah. In addition he was the first person since Moses to see the real Abraham’s altar also located at Mount Sinai and not in Jerusalem. He has discovered the code systems used by Moses when writing the surface story of the Torah, which enabled him to decode the Torah and other earlier books of the Hebrew Scriptures.”

    In short… Douglas Vogt is a bit of a generalized crackpot. His foray into Birthistan is simply the latest in a long line of similar fringe ideas.

    Oh GAWWWD! Ya can’t make this stuff up…

  63. avatar
    foreigner June 2, 2011 at 12:54 am #

    thank you, Dr. Conspiracy, very much for the quick reply and detailed analysis.
    I had been waiting for that.
    Also your credentials look impressive to me.

    But…

    Then you added the videos and endorse that ridiculing and insulting and attacking
    here. That’s no good scientific practice, such things would not be seen
    in papers,articles,talkshows where you may present this analysis.(AFAIK)
    So, why are you -and people here- doing it ? Is it this sort of “humor”
    that holds this community together and makes the American culture superior ?

    Vogt had added that affidated. Has this negative consequences for him
    if it turns out unsubstantiated ? Why did he do it ? It’s uncommon and
    I don’t see a reason for it.When you want to get support for a theory,
    get reviews from other experts instead.

  64. avatar
    richCares June 2, 2011 at 1:01 am #

    “That’s no good scientific practice”
    I though it was great, after all it was Crap!

  65. avatar
    Sean June 2, 2011 at 1:59 am #

    It strikes me silly to make claims based on your expertise (Douglas Vogt) when there are so many others in the industry that do the same thing and can see that you’re lying.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 2, 2011 at 2:24 am #

    foreigner: Then you added the videos and endorse that ridiculing and insulting and attacking
    here. That’s no good scientific practice, such things would not be seen
    in papers,articles,talkshows where you may present this analysis.(AFAIK)
    So, why are you -and people here- doing it ? Is it this sort of “humor”
    that holds this community together and makes the American culture superior ?

    When the birthers bring a well-constructed scientific or legal argument, then they will be afforded respect. Lacking that they may deserve pity or derision, but not to be taken seriously.

    I cannot think of a more objective and scientific description of Vogt’s paper than “crap.” And as the character in the video says, I’m tired of this crap. Every time one of these nut cases comes up with a 22-page collection of junk science, junk law and fallacy, the refutation takes 4-5 hours of my time that could be better spent mowing the grass or something. I probably have 2,000 hours in this web site by now and all because of liars and idiots.

    If something is crap, it’s in nobody’s interest to pretend that it isn’t.

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 2, 2011 at 2:34 am #

    Marshal: Your pronouncements on the curvature still dont conform to reality. Hand waving it off wont do,

    Could you be more specific about “don’t conform to reality?” Could you detail a proof that it doesn’t conform to reality, perhaps with some better diagrams that Vogt’s. Say compare some curved underlines to straight ones to see which match better?

    Or do you expect other people to do your thinking for you?

  68. avatar
    foreigner June 2, 2011 at 3:21 am #

    the text and the lines are (almost) exactly aligned with the picture borders in the
    White House .pdf
    Not so the Onaka stamp.
    But shouldn’t we take the original copy, presented to the press ?

    The stamp is very much parallel to the lowest line in that copy.
    That would be a strange coincidence for a hand-stamp

  69. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 2, 2011 at 3:49 am #

    You aren’t making any sense. The alignment of the Onaka stamp is identical on both the color PDF and the b/w photocopy that was handed to the press. In both cases, the stamp is very slightly tilted to the left when compared with the line that appears under field 23 of the birth certificate.

    It doesn’t matter in any case. You birthers scream fraud over every microscopic imperfection you can find, and then if you can’t find an imperfection, you then scream fraud because it’s too perfect to be real.

    The Department of Health in Hawaii has VOUCHED for the validity of the certificate. Again and again and again. Unless you believe that two successive directors of the health department, from different political parties, are liars, then there is nothing to talk about.

  70. avatar
    foreigner June 2, 2011 at 4:16 am #

    Expelliarmus, how can’t it “make any sense” ? It’s a clear unambigous statement
    that can be right or wrong or inexact wrt. to the aligning but what’s the problem
    with the “sense” ?
    Obviously you did understand what I meant.
    I’m using the copy at
    http://cbsla.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/113207051-e1303920915143.jpg
    that I linked to yesterday in the other thread.
    Unfortunately I can’t post pictures here nor can I edit my posts.
    Maybe I can upload it so to demonstrate the parallelity.
    This difference to the White House picture could be due to
    the imaging process, a camera may induce some “rotation”
    of distant parts of the picture, which a scanner won’t.
    But then again there is the coincidence that this “rotation” would have
    converted the anti-parallel texts into parallel ones.
    So, are there special stamps in use that ensure exact parallel alignment ?

    —————————————————————————————-
    video from Corsi here:
    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/06/jerome-corsi-explains-criminal.html
    “the proof is extremely strong”

    what Vogt didn’t tell us in “My Credentials”:
    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20001007&slug=4046570

    ————————————————————————————————

  71. avatar
    foreigner June 2, 2011 at 4:28 am #

    Expelliarmus wrote:

    > You birthers scream fraud over every microscopic imperfection you can find,

    you incorrectly suggest that I had “screamed fraud”
    you incorrectly suggest I were a “birther”. Well, maybe I am within some
    people’s or blog’s definitions but not by wikipedia.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

    > and then if you can’t find an imperfection, you then scream fraud because
    > it’s too perfect to be real

    again, I didn’t “scream fraud”.
    Perfect alignment would suggest that not a handstamp was used.
    Examining this could also be helpful to explain the “X” – error.
    It could also be coincidence, from the accuracy I have a vague
    estimate of 1:100 now, maybe I can try to make a better
    estimate later.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 2, 2011 at 7:40 am #

    foreigner: Perfect alignment would suggest that not a handstamp was used.

    Only the alignment is not perfect.

    I showed in my article that the alignment was not perfect on the page. Somebody here commented that the form itself is turned and that the stamp and that the stamp is perfectly aligned with the printed portion of the form. That is not true.

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 2, 2011 at 8:04 am #

    foreigner: the text and the lines are (almost) exactly aligned with the picture borders in the
    White House .pdf
    Not so the Onaka stamp.
    But shouldn’t we take the original copy, presented to the press ?

    The stamp is very much parallel to the lowest line in that copy.
    That would be a strange coincidence for a hand-stamp

    First “almost exactly” is not the same as “exactly.” A true statement would “not quite exactly” as I showed in my article.

    It does not make sense to use the copy presented to the press because it is a third generation copy whereas the White House PDF is a second generation copy. The second problem is that the image you link to is not a scan at all, but a photograph. Notice that the right side is blurry, meaning the photograph is not shot perpendicular to the form, but taken from an angle — something that would add angular distortion to the image. And the alignment is not perfect in this image either.

  74. avatar
    dch June 2, 2011 at 8:20 am #

    I suggest you birthers contact Mr Onaka and let him know that the Hawaii DoH website is linking to a document that you all have determined, using the most advanced document science available, to be a forgery that uses his name and stamp. I’m sure he’d like to know.

  75. avatar
    Majority Will June 2, 2011 at 8:37 am #

    foreigner: video from Corsi here:
    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/06/jerome-corsi-explains-criminal.html
    “the proof is extremely strong”

    what Vogt didn’t tell us in “My Credentials”:
    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20001007&slug=4046570

    What point are you making citing these references?

    Please explain.

  76. avatar
    Suranis June 2, 2011 at 8:42 am #

    Reminds me of all those birthers screaming that the M in male didn’t appear to curve and that was evidence it was a fraud. Then it was forcefully pointed out that the M DID ACTUALLY curve, there was a pause then they said the curving effect of all the words on that side was actually evidence of forgery.

    Or Butterdezillion saying there was no seal on it and that meant it was forged, at which point people showed her the seal, and he of course without missing a beat began claiming the seal meant it was forged.

    Everything is proof of ineligibility to these people, perfection or imperfection.

  77. avatar
    foreigner June 2, 2011 at 8:55 am #

    OK, I checked the alignment. I wouldn’t say 1:100, but 1:10
    for someone trying to put the stamp horizontally by hand
    without aid to be exact within the limits of the resolution
    of the picture.
    Maybe he used a ruler to align the stamp, put it on the paper,
    then put pressure on the edges of the stamp … maybe that’s why the
    middle had no ink, which he corrected with a pen, thus accidently
    putting the X.
    Or was there another explanation for the X already ?

  78. avatar
    Bovril June 2, 2011 at 9:12 am #

    Just to remind the troll and it’s feeders.

    All this is (un)intellectual masturbation as it has NOTHING to do with the actual paper document that is the only one that counts.

    The Birfoons can whine (and will continue to do so) about the scanned document for ever, it simply doesn’t matter one iota. The scan isn’t a legal document, the hard copy is the legal document.

    Addressing the asinine repetitive mumblings of “foreigner” or any other Birfoon on this topic is a simple waste of time, energy and electrons.

  79. avatar
    Denny June 2, 2011 at 10:04 am #

    To end this matter once and for all, Hawaii needs to submit the original as evidence. PDF’s and on line copies don’t cut it. Just present the damn certificate and stop all of this academic masturbation, And, please, don’t bring up the issue of COLB – it’s not the original hospital birth certificate.

    Now, let the rationalizations begin.

  80. avatar
    richCares June 2, 2011 at 10:12 am #

    “To end this matter once and for all, ”
    except for silly birthers this is over, it has ended.
    .
    no rationalzation required just go to Hawaii gov site, which states:
    “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
    note the word “certified”, let me type that slowly so you can unsderstand it,”c e r t i f i e d”

  81. avatar
    Arthur June 2, 2011 at 10:29 am #

    Bovril:
    Just to remind the troll and it’s feeders.

    All this is (un)intellectual masturbation as it has NOTHING to do with the actual paper document that is the only one that counts . . . adressing the asinine repetitive mumblings of “foreigner” or any other Birfoon on this topic is a simple waste of time, energy and electrons.

    Essentially, I agree with Bovril. On the other hand, the half-baked arguments and cockeyed evidence offered by foreigner, Marshall, et al., are useful reminders of how the power of bias (and other forms of distorted thinking) can overwhelm reason. I don’t think anyone is entirely immune from this intellectual poison–all we can do is remember the foolish example of the birthers and strive to avoid it.

  82. avatar
    Arthur June 2, 2011 at 10:34 am #

    foreigner:
    thank you, Dr. Conspiracy, very much for the quick reply and detailed analysis.
    I had been waiting for that.
    Also your credentials look impressive to me.

    But…

    Then you added the videos and endorse that ridiculing and insulting and attacking
    here. That’s no good scientific practice, such things would not be seen
    in papers,articles,talkshows where you may present this analysis.(AFAIK)
    So, why are you -and people here- doing it ?

    Why? The answer can be found in the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson: “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”

  83. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 2, 2011 at 10:35 am #

    foreigner: Or was there another explanation for the X already ?

    First, it isn’t an “X”. If you look at the upper right, it’s clearly starting a vertical stroke downward, inconsistent with an “X”. What we have is something that looks like an “X”, but isn’t.

    I’ll write an article.

  84. avatar
    sactosintolerant June 2, 2011 at 10:35 am #

    “To end this matter once and for all”

    Sounds familiar. I’m sorry, but exhumation for DNA testing and actual video of the birth wouldn’t be enough for some of these people.

  85. avatar
    Arthur June 2, 2011 at 10:48 am #

    Denny:
    To end this matter once and for all, Hawaii needs to submit the original as evidence. PDF’s and on line copies don’t cut it. Just present the damn certificate and stop all of this academic masturbation, And, please, don’t bring up the issue of COLB – it’s not the original hospital birth certificate.

    To whom should the original be submitted? You?

    I’ve an idea! Let’s take the President’s birth certificate on tour and charge everyone who wants to see it $10 ($20 to feel the raised seal). The proceeds can go to building Mr. Obama’s presidential library.

  86. avatar
    James M June 2, 2011 at 10:49 am #

    Daniel: The valid range of 0 t0 255 is so intensely ingrained in the IT culture that even seeing the phrase “0 for white to 256 for black” just looks wrong from first glance.

    At first glance, I see an off-by-one error. Correcting someone on a mistake like this too harshly leads to bad karma. It’s equivalent to correcting someone on a spelling or grammar error. As soon as you do that, you will make a grammatical error yourself, as embarrassing to you as you were harsh to them.

    It’s not a mistake I would make, after years and years of assembly language programming, but I have also learned my lesson not to jump on someone for their grammar, because as soon as I do that, I will invariably make an even worse error of my own.

  87. avatar
    Thrifty June 2, 2011 at 10:58 am #

    Denny: To end this matter once and for all, Hawaii needs to submit the original as evidence. PDF’s and on line copies don’t cut it. Just present the damn certificate and stop all of this academic masturbation, And, please, don’t bring up the issue of COLB – it’s not the original hospital birth certificate.
    Now, let the rationalizations begin.

    Did I trip and fall into a time vortex and land back at the beginning of 2011? I swear this is exactly what birthers were saying before the long form was released.

  88. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 2, 2011 at 11:12 am #

    James M,

    What most people have seen when they said that it looks wrong is the fact that he reversed them, and that’s what he’s more concerned about. Yes, there’s a 1-off error. However, I saw more the fact that he claimed that 0 was for white, and 255 was for black, something that anybody who had dealt with any sort of background in computer graphics would know doesn’t happen. That in almost every computer color, 0 is for black. This is not something that an expert would do.

    The reason is that computers use a additive computer wheel. A grey-scale, even if you were to strip it down to 1 number, would still use that number for each component. #000000 is black in computers. #FFFFFF is white in computers. I see no reason why any document would go against this.

    That’s more my concern, than the 1-off.

  89. avatar
    Daniel June 2, 2011 at 11:22 am #

    James M: It’s not a mistake I would make, after years and years of assembly language programming, but I have also learned my lesson not to jump on someone for their grammar, because as soon as I do that, I will invariably make an even worse error of my own.

    My point was not that it’s not possible for an “expert” to make an offbyone mistake.

    It’s the combination of two mistakes of two core principles in one small phrase that is the telling point. It’s kind of like a surgeon saying “the brain is located in the foot”. That would be a troubling comment, but possibly just an error in a moment of inattention. If that same surgeon said “the brain is located in the foot and is used for excreting urine”, I would NOT be comfortable with having him remove my appendix.

    One core error in a phrase is troubling. Two core errors in the same phrase indicates a charlatan.

  90. avatar
    Daniel June 2, 2011 at 11:28 am #

    foreigner: That’s no good scientific practice,

    It is common practice among real scientists, to ridicule the ridiculous. It’s known as peer review, and it can be extremely harsh, as scientists don’t appreciate having their time wasted.

    You keep appealing to “scientific practice”, yet it’s becoming plain that you really don’t know much about what that phrase really means.

  91. avatar
    JoZeppy June 2, 2011 at 11:34 am #

    Denny: To end this matter once and for all, Hawaii needs to submit the original as evidence. PDF’s and on line copies don’t cut it. Just present the damn certificate and stop all of this academic masturbation, And, please, don’t bring up the issue of COLB – it’s not the original hospital birth certificate.Now, let the rationalizations begin.

    Actually, the matter was settled long ago for those not blinded by irrational hatred of the President.

    First off, where exactly is Hawaii going to “submit the original as evidence”? That implies some legal proceeding. There has been no legal proceeding where there has ever been any need to submit any such records.

    Secondly, even if there was such a legal proceeding, the submission of evidence would be controlled by something known as the rules of evidence (whether the Federal or some state rules. Under the Federal Rules, that COLB that you and you malcontent, America hating compatriots so passionately reject would have been sufficient to establish the fact that President Obama was born in Hawaii. But you not only have that, you have the State of Hawaii specifically on record attesting to the facts contained on that document. Two administrations, one Republican, one Democratic, have confirmed the facts of the document. Then on top of that you have a certified copy of the long from that the State of Hawaii made a special exception to release (which like the COLB is also a self authenticating document under the FRE). And on top of that you have the State of Hawaii specifically attesting to the truth of that document.

    And now, on top of that, you want the State of Hawaii, to dig out the original source document out of the archieves to “present” as “evidence” to some non-existent proceeding of somesort, and why? What “evidence” do you have to even question the original COLB, that in a court of law, and for any other legal purpose, and for any other person born in the State of Hawaii was sufficient to prove the facts of his birth?

    You demand the most extraordinary actions to satify your obstinate refusal to accept the legimacy of a duly elected and sworn President based on what exactly? What is your rationalization to deny a mountain of uncontroverted evidence without a shred of evidence to the contrary.

    Just another right wing Jihadi trying to turn the US into their version of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sorry but I don’t want you on any Guardian Council picking who I can vote for and elect as President.

  92. avatar
    Tarrant June 2, 2011 at 11:44 am #

    Denny:
    To end this matter once and for all, Hawaii needs to submit the original as evidence. PDF’s and on line copies don’t cut it. Just present the damn certificate and stop all of this academic masturbation, And, please, don’t bring up the issue of COLB – it’s not the original hospital birth certificate.

    Now, let the rationalizations begin.

    Hospitals aren’t responsible for the generation of birth certificates that are admissible as official records of identity. State governments are.

  93. avatar
    Suranis June 2, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    Denny:
    To end this matter once and for all, Hawaii needs to submit the original as evidence. PDF’s and on line copies don’t cut it. Just present the damn certificate and stop all of this academic masturbation, And, please, don’t bring up the issue of COLB – it’s not the original hospital birth certificate.

    Its been already accounted for in berfierstan. They have already speculated that someone snuck into the DOH in Hawaii and pasted a new page into the book of vital records with Obamas ‘fake’ birth details.

    And you know what the ‘proof’ will be? That the page looks just like the certified copy released in April. *head hammering on desk*

  94. avatar
    foreigner June 2, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    I verified the misalignment of the stamp in the wordpress copy by more exact interpolation
    of the expected rotation due to the camera position
    ————————————————————
    Majority Will , 1.) show the relevance of this analysis 2.) show Vogt’s tendency to conspiracy theories
    ————————————————————-
    Denny , agreed (Hawaii to show the original to Taitz or whomever)
    ————————————————————-

  95. avatar
    Thrifty June 2, 2011 at 12:20 pm #

    JoZeppy: First off, where exactly is Hawaii going to “submit the original as evidence”? That implies some legal proceeding. There has been no legal proceeding where there has ever been any need to submit any such records.

    Well I assumed he meant “submit as evidence” in a more informal way. Like, if you and I were hanging out and you claimed that the biggest donut in the world was 4 feet in diameter, I’d ask for some evidence, like a photograph of it being measured. No legal proceedings involved.

    It still raises the question of what “the original” is, and how it is submitted. Presumably this is the thing that currently resides in Hawaii and was photocopied in April The how is more difficult, since scans or photographs of such don’t count. There’s only one original, so photocopying and mailing them to anyone who wants to examine it is out. So the best I can come up with is allowing birthers to physically enter the office where the original is being held.

    Of course, anyone who knows conspiracy theories know this wouldn’t work. Birthers already believe that the Hawaii officials are in on it. If any of them were allowed to look at the original, it would be no great leap to claim that the state of Hawaii produced a fake certificate stored in the office. Marshall has already been claiming this if I recall correctly.

  96. avatar
    Arthur June 2, 2011 at 12:21 pm #

    foreigner:

    Denny , agreed (Hawaii to show the original to Taitz or whomever)
    ————————————————————-

    Oh, God, foreigner, you just made my day! There’s nothing like the comedy of a fool who is trying to be taken seriously.

  97. avatar
    Majority Will June 2, 2011 at 12:35 pm #

    foreigner: Majority Will , 1.) show the relevance of this analysis

    But you said you weren’t a birther. So why are you citing birther analysis which has been proven ad nauseam to be irrelevant given the provenance of the document to which you attested was from Hawaii?

    What’s your point? Are you accusing the state of Hawaii of fraud?

    The information on both certified copies (COLB and LFBC) of the President’s birth certificate match exactly to what the state of Hawaii has confirmed as verified.

    It also confirms place of birth and date of birth which are two of the three criteria for eligibility for the office of President according to the Constitution.

    So again, what’s your point?

  98. avatar
    richCares June 2, 2011 at 12:42 pm #

    “So again, what’s your point?”
    if I may venture a guess, is it the top of his head?

  99. avatar
    obsolete June 2, 2011 at 1:23 pm #

    foreigner: Denny , agreed (Hawaii to show the original to Taitz or whomever)

    Orly has already declared it to be a forgery.
    Since you claim to be into “science” and stuff, shouldn’t we find a neutral observer to “submit” it to?

    For Foreigner- By “neutral observer”, I mean somebody that hasn’t already made up their mind.

  100. avatar
    foreigner June 2, 2011 at 1:25 pm #

    do I have to have a point ?

    well, figuring out the truth
    figuring out whether I can trust Obama/USA
    figuring out how it goes with these conspiracy theories,
    how they grow and fall (or not)

  101. avatar
    Majority Will June 2, 2011 at 1:43 pm #

    foreigner:
    do I have to have a point ?

    well, figuring out the truth
    figuring out whether I can trust Obama/USA
    figuring out how it goes with these conspiracy theories,
    how they grow and fall (or not)

    The President wasn’t a witness to his own birth. The state of Hawaii is the relevant authority.

    Why would you have reason to doubt the legal authority of the state of Hawaii?

    Do you have credible evidence of malfeasance?

  102. avatar
    Thrifty June 2, 2011 at 1:45 pm #

    foreigner: do I have to have a point ?well, figuring out the truthfiguring out whether I can trust Obama/USAfiguring out how it goes with these conspiracy theories,how they grow and fall (or not)

    The truth is that Barack Obama was born on August 4th, 1961, in Hawaii. This is proven by the certificate of live birth presented in 2008, and corroborated by mountains of other evidence.

    Do you believe the Nordyke twins were born in Hawaii? Do you believe Donald Trump was born in New York? Why or why not?

    Whether you can trust president Obama is a separate question and irrelevant. Believing he was born in Hawaii is based upon the facts of his birth certificate.

    And for God’s sake, use complete sentences, punctuation, and spelling.

  103. avatar
    Majority Will June 2, 2011 at 1:46 pm #

    foreigner:
    do I have to have a point ?

    If you don’t have a point, why are you asking questions and wasting time posting here?

    Is this just a silly lark for you?

    Not having a point means your posts are pointless.

    Is that what you’re telling everyone?

  104. avatar
    Wild Bill H June 2, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

    I’m no pert, nor even an expert…but it bothers me greatly that in ALL matters concerning Obama, there always, always, always has to be some sort of hitch.

    I am wondering if there is anything about the man that is straight forward and without some irregularity of some sort. Seems not.

    I have no clue whether the BC is real or not. I’m not sure I even care, because imo he is still ineligible due to his own claim that he was governed at birth by British Law. I digress.

    What bothers me is that the WH would release a PDF in the first place. Why on earth would they not have released a jpeg, gif, bmp, or tiff? And then….why would they not flatten it first – before they turned it into a PDF? This ‘suggests’ that it was ‘created’ and not copied from the original. I’m not saying it was creating, I’m saying it would seem to be simply because there are links found within the PDF and some of those links have been rotated and resized. WHY WHY WHY would you leave something like this in a document to be found? Was it on purpose or was it an oversight? I just have a very hard time believing it was an oversight. And I have equally as hard a time believing it was on purpose.

    To be honest – none of it makes any sense. Whether it is for real or not really makes no difference to me….it’s that it had to be surrounded by controversy – THAT right there is what I think Obama was aiming for. Why would Obama want this put to bed…he wants it to continue to fill the fringes with questions of his validity. Mind you – when the kitchen starts getting hot, he will do something to control the flames…but he sure doesn’t want to put the fire out completely.

    And all you on this blog should be ashamed of yourselves. I know you’re not…but you should be. Really. Why would you go to such lengths to defend a man who needs no defending? Obama is a big boy – he is a powerful boy – he doesn’t need you to do his bidding for him. He is more than capable – apparently you don’t think so though. Why would you not, for the sake of America, want Obama to have released a document that you didn’t have to defend? Why wouldn’t you want him to release a document that you didn’t HAVE to create so many blog entries to support, defend and explain? Simply amazing the lengths to which you all will go for this man. You can like him, you can support him….but he has put you in the position of HAVING to defend him and explain away all the inconsistencies in this document. And the sadist part of all he is knows you will. He knows all you little followers out here are screaming from the roof tops about how pure as the driving snow he is. He loves it…but the real question is – does he love you for doing it? I could be wrong (according to everyone on this blog, I’m 100% wrong), but he seems like the kind of guy who takes advantage, says he will call, but never does.

    If Obama had any credibility before this, he certainly has none left after releasing this jickey document.- be it real or fake.

  105. avatar
    Joey June 2, 2011 at 2:36 pm #

    Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, Registrar of Vital Statistics for the state of Hawaii is alive and well. He is a non-partisan, non-political civil servant and he is available to testify under oath or to be deposed if such a need should ever arise.

  106. avatar
    richCares June 2, 2011 at 2:39 pm #

    I guess Wild Bill won’t vote for Obama in 2012.
    Whatever!

  107. avatar
    Daniel June 2, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    foreigner:
    do I have to have a point ?

    well, figuring out the truth
    figuring out whether I can trust Obama/USA
    figuring out how it goes with these conspiracy theories,
    how they grow and fall (or not)

    Concern troll.

    Like we’ve never seen one of them around here before lol

  108. avatar
    Daniel June 2, 2011 at 2:45 pm #

    Wild Bill H: I’m no pert, nor even an expert…but it bothers me greatly that in ALL matters concerning Obama, there always, always, always has to be some sort of hitch.

    Perhaps if Birthers weren’t purporting the ridiculous, there wouldn’t be quite so many hitches?

    Like with any wild conspiracy theory, Birtherism fails in the details.

  109. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 2, 2011 at 2:53 pm #

    Wild Bill H: but it bothers me greatly that in ALL matters concerning Obama, there always, always, always has to be some sort of hitch.

    Welcome to the real world. Heck, my mother’s name was wrong on my hospital souvenir birth certificate. A lot of the “hitches” aren’t even problems; they are just not what someone else imagines things ought to be like. Flaws are, as the saying goes, “the exceptions that prove the rule.”

    As Scott Peck says “life is difficult.”

  110. avatar
    Thrifty June 2, 2011 at 2:56 pm #

    Wild Bill H: What bothers me is that the WH would release a PDF in the first place. Why on earth would they not have released a jpeg, gif, bmp, or tiff?

    Because a professional office doesn’t scan documents in JPEG format. This isn’t an art studio. PDF = Portable DOCUMENT Format.

    Wild Bill H: Why would you not, for the sake of America, want Obama to have released a document that you didn’t have to defend?

    Why didn’t we demand he release a photo of Sasha and Malia playing with their pet unicorn? Same reason. Such a thing does not exist. The document only has to be defended because cranks and loons and liars like you find mundane features and call them flaws.

    Nobody HAS to defend President Obama. Birthers haven’t won a single court case. You don’t have anyone in Congress on your side calling for articles of impeachment. The Certificate of Live Birth firmly defends him in any legal proceeding (it is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth–a self authenticating document). The testimonials of people who knew him and his family during his childhood, the long form, the corroborating statements by state officials from two different parties are all just icing on the cake.

    What we do here is not out of necessity. It’s for amusement. It’s a hobby.

  111. avatar
    Joey June 2, 2011 at 3:03 pm #

    Wild Bill H:
    I’m no pert, nor even an expert…but it bothers me greatly that in ALL matters concerning Obama, there always, always, always has to be some sort of hitch.

    I am wondering if there is anything about the man that is straight forward and without some irregularity of some sort.Seems not.

    I have no clue whether the BC is real or not.I’m not sure I even care, because imo he is still ineligible due to his own claim that he was governed at birth by British Law.I digress.

    What bothers me is that the WH would release a PDF in the first place.Why on earth would they not have released a jpeg, gif, bmp, or tiff?And then….why would they not flatten it first – before they turned it into a PDF?This suggests’ that it was created’ and not copied from the original.I’m not saying it was creating, I’m saying it would seem to be simply because there are links found within the PDF and some of those links have been rotated and resized.WHY WHY WHY would you leave something like this in a document to be found?Was it on purpose or was it an oversight?I just have a very hard time believing it was an oversight.And I have equally as hard a time believing it was on purpose.

    To be honest – none of it makes any sense.Whether it is for real or not really makes no difference to me….it’s that it had to be surrounded by controversy – THAT right there is what I think Obama was aiming for.Why would Obama want this put to bed…he wants it to continue to fill the fringes with questions of his validity.Mind you – when the kitchen starts getting hot, he will do something to control the flames…but he sure doesn’t want to put the fire out completely.

    And all you on this blog should be ashamed of yourselves.I know you’re not…but you should be.Really.Why would you go to such lengths to defend a man who needs no defending?Obama is a big boy – he is a powerful boy – he doesn’t need you to do his bidding for him.He is more than capable – apparently you don’t think so though.Why would you not, for the sake of America, want Obama to have released a document that you didn’t have to defend?Why wouldn’t you want him to release a document that you didn’t HAVE to create so many blog entries to support, defend and explain?Simply amazing the lengths to which you all will go for this man.You can like him, you can support him….but he has put you in the position of HAVING to defend him and explain away all the inconsistencies in this document.And the sadist part of all he is knows you will.He knows all you little followers out here are screaming from the roof tops about how pure as the driving snow he is.He loves it…but the real question is – does he love you for doing it?I could be wrong (according to everyone on this blog, I’m 100% wrong), but he seems like the kind of guy who takes advantage, says he will call, but never does.

    If Obama had any credibility before this, he certainly has none left after releasing this jickey document.- be it real or fake.

    It works to Obama’s political advantage with his base of voters and his most likely voting blocs to keep the birther issue alive. In my humble opinion, it’s really that simple.
    ALL politicians use some degree of demonization of their political opponents to rally their base. Obama uses birthers the way Ronald Reagan used leftist college students and black militants.
    Its helpful to have a boogie-man to rail against.
    The President’s current composite job approval rating is 52.8% approval and 43.8% disapproval across five of the latest national public opinion polls. His strategy is working for him. If it stops working, he’ll change strategies.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
    On the other side of the issue from Obama on the political games being played concerning his birth certificate specifically and his eligiblity in general, Obama’s political opposition, the Republicans control the House of Representatives. At any time, the Republicans in the House could convene a congressional hearing into Obama’s eligiblity and they could subpoena documents and compel witnesses to testify under oath on any and all issues involved in Article II, Section 1 eligiblity with the goal of resolving the issue once and for all. The Republicans haven’t convened such hearings and if you believe their leaders, they won’t be convening congressional hearings because they have no interest in resolving the issue.
    “The state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me.”–John Boehner (R-OH), Speaker of the House of Representatives.
    The state of Hawaii confirms the authenticity of the Obama long form birth certificate.
    http://www.hi5deposit.com/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf

  112. avatar
    Thrifty June 2, 2011 at 3:19 pm #

    Seriously, this nonsensical cry of “omg release a JPG!” is one of those few nuggets I can provide my professional experience on.

    At my current job, for one reason or another, the company refuses to implement a direct to PDF scanning standard for documents. We don’t do a lot of scanning around here, so I guess it’s not that important a project. But as an asinine workaround, here’s what you do if you have, say, a 10 page document that you want to turn into a PDF.

    1) Take document and pile in to feeder on scanner.
    2) Open Adobe Photoshop Elements.
    3) Scan all the documents as JPG. This creates 10 different JPG images.
    4) The 10 JPG images are displayed in a sort of gallery view in Photoshop Elements, all in order.
    5) Select each of those 10 pages (hold down Control while left clicking each picture). Make sure the pages aren’t out of order, or that there are any JPG images from other scans still on the gallery view. Otherwise these will be in your final PDF.
    6) Print the documents to a separate PDF creator program.
    7) Save PDF to hard drive or network share.

    Contrast this with the way we did it at my last company.

    1) Place documents in scanner.
    2) Press a few buttons on the scanner to select the network share where you want the scan to go.
    3) Press “scan”. Paper is scanned and a PDF is created.

    You could, through these methods, create a JPG or a BMP. Except that this would result in HUGE files that would hog up tons of space on the server. We built and repaired helicopters there, and JPGs were passed around–but these were photographs of helicopters and parts.

    Why was the LFBC scanned as a PDF? Because it’s a DOCUMENT, and the White House is a competent, professional office environment. Birthers are screaming “OMG PDF!!!! LAYERS! THAT’S ODD!” without any explanation why. You just know that if it had come out as a BMP, the argument would be “WHY NOT A JPG OR PDF???”

  113. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 2, 2011 at 3:22 pm #

    foreigner:
    OK, I checked the alignment. I wouldn’t say 1:100, but 1:10
    for someone trying to put the stamp horizontally by hand
    without aid to be exact within the limits of the resolution
    of the picture.

    OK, assuming a handstamp mounted on a brace like this
    http://goo.gl/qt9QK

    What would be so difficult (unusual) about making an impressions where the letters were in almost, but not quite perfect, alignment with a horizontal line directly above the area where the person was placing the stamp? It doesn’t seem to me to be all that difficult of a task.

  114. avatar
    Majority Will June 2, 2011 at 3:24 pm #

    Wild Bill H:

    And all you on this blog should be ashamed of yourselves. I know you’re not…but you should be. Really.

    The largest whatever in the history of the universe. Really.

    :roll:

  115. avatar
    James M June 2, 2011 at 3:25 pm #

    Wild Bill H[I]t bothers me greatly that in ALL matters concerning Obama, there always, always, always has to be some sort of hitch.

    Like what?
    Can you be specific about this?

    I know that there are people who will try to spin every detail or lack of detail into a “hitch”, but if you are saying that there are any actual problems, please be specific.

    In particular, do you believe that any of these “hitches” represents evidence of a crime?

  116. avatar
    Greg June 2, 2011 at 3:39 pm #

    Wild Bill H: I’m no pert, nor even an expert…but it bothers me greatly that in ALL matters concerning Obama, there always, always, always has to be some sort of hitch.

    Give me a document, any document, and I can give you 20 hitches. Go pull a document from Google, from Orly’s site, anywhere, and I’ll come up with some hitches.

    My hobby: inventing hitches!

    Birthers’ hobby? Inventing bogus reasons not to believe Obama’s birth certificates.

    You should be ashamed of yourself!

  117. avatar
    James M June 2, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    Wild Bill H: And all you on this blog should be ashamed of yourselves.

    One of my purposes for being on this blog is the entertainment value that I receive from posters like yourself. What you are saying is that I should be ashamed because I read what you write. I respectfully disagree, as I have neither said nor done anything to be ashamed of.

    You are on this blog yourself, so are you ashamed?

  118. avatar
    Greg June 2, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

    Xkcd is giving me some stuff re: stupid beliefs:

    http://xkcd.com/154/

    “A million people can call the mountains a fiction. Yet, it need not trouble you as you stand atop them.”

  119. avatar
    Scientist June 2, 2011 at 3:45 pm #

    Wild Bill H (a/k/a Sally Hill): Let me be crystal clear. There are no hitches with the birth certifiicate. Not a single one. File format, fonts, curves, etc. are irrelevant. The sole purpose of such a document is to convey information regarding date and place of birth and it does so. Masterfully, I might add. Some might give a long story about their birth involving the frequency of contractions, the route taken to the hospital, etc. Not this baby. Just the facts, ma’am, name, rank and serial number. The document is a model of spare prose that could be used in writing courses throughout the English-speaking world.

    As for your point regarding British law, no one is subject to Britiish law unless they are within the borders of the UK. Don’t belleve me? Try this simple experiment. British law says you driive on the left-hand side of the road. I invite you to go out on a highway near you (hopefully not near me) and try that. Let us know how that works out.

  120. avatar
    US Citizen June 2, 2011 at 4:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I probably have 2,000 hours in this web site by now and all because of liars and idiots.

    I appreciate this website.
    It has social value and even web value if some advertising was employed.
    In 100 years, no one will remember any of us, but this website may be archived as a reference for a small, but important part of history.

    Regardless, you cannot blame or credit anyone but yourself.
    You are not the sheriff for stupid people.
    You cannot blame the idiots of the US for your actions.
    That puts them in control of your life.
    One could suggest you have a mental obsession with truth and order, but the fact that you have followers indicates others (like myself) may share such traits also.

    There are more aggregate hours spent by your readers than yourself.
    We obviously find some value in the site or we wouldn’t be here.
    Thank you.

  121. avatar
    Majority Will June 2, 2011 at 4:27 pm #

    US Citizen: I appreciate this website.
    It has social value and even web value if some advertising was employed.
    In 100 years, no one will remember any of us, but this website may be archived as a reference for a small, but important part of history.

    Regardless, you cannot blame or credit anyone but yourself.
    You are not the sheriff for stupid people.
    You cannot blame the idiots of the US for your actions.
    That puts them in control of your life.
    One could suggest you have a mental obsession with truth and order, but the fact that you have followers indicates others (like myself) may share such traits also.

    There are more aggregate hours spent by your readers than yourself.
    We obviously find some value in the site or we wouldn’t be here.
    Thank you.

    Ditto. Well stated.

  122. avatar
    Thrifty June 2, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

    US Citizen: I appreciate this website.
    It has social value and even web value if some advertising was employed.
    In 100 years, no one will remember any of us, but this website may be archived as a reference for a small, but important part of history.

    That just blew my mind. I never before considered the Internet as part of history. I guess because it’s so new. Can you imagine if, today, we could look up articles written about the sinking of the Titanic, written on web sites the day it happened?

  123. avatar
    Greg June 2, 2011 at 4:29 pm #

    foreigner: That’s no good scientific practice, such things would not be seen
    in papers,articles,talkshows where you may present this analysis.(AFAIK)

    First, talkshows?
    Second, this shows that AFAYK is not very much about the way science actually happens, rather than the idealized way that you THINK that science occurs. Take the recent debate about arsenic based life. The comments were quite heated, and often quite mocking. Take this one from an author who actually published a response in a respectible journal:

    “It’s like finding a unicorn in your back garden,” said Rosemary Redfield, professor of microbiology at the University of British Columbia and an author of one of the eight published comments. “The chances of it being an actual unicorn are small, but if the experiments had been really well done, then they would have been convincing. In fact, the experiments were quite badly done. It’s like having a blurry picture of the unicorn. It’s unlikely that it’s actually a unicorn.”

    Science is done by humans, so mocking and ridicule are par for the course. The final question comes down to the validity of the claims being made, and it’s clear that Dr. C has the right of it. He has methodically debunked birthers at every step of the way. Perhaps you should take a look at the right-hand side of your screen where you can see dozens of articles debunking various birther claims – going back to 2008.

  124. avatar
    dch June 2, 2011 at 4:54 pm #

    Wild Bill
    “I have no clue whether the BC is real or not. I’m not sure I even care, because imo he is still ineligible due to his own claim that he was governed at birth by British Law. I digress.”

    A: The State of Hawaii has confirmed the LFBC is correct. It is “real”.
    B. Your opinon that BHO was governed by British law is simply wrong and a made up birther meme. The US law is supreme within the boundaries of the US. Name an instance from a US court case about citizenship were this was not the case.

  125. avatar
    richCares June 2, 2011 at 5:02 pm #

    “I appreciate this site”
    me too, I started visting Doc’s site due to my neighbor’s birther son, I was looking for ways to debunk him. No mater what I tried hec was locked into Birtherism, I gave up on that but it is a really sad story. His daughter moved in with the grandparents as she couldn’t handle his delusions on Obama. The girl graduated from HS last night, she asked her father not to come. I hear simailar stories from others as well. Hating Obama causes brain damage. Want proof, read wild bill’s stuff.

  126. avatar
    Scientist June 2, 2011 at 5:09 pm #

    Greg: Science is done by humans, so mocking and ridicule are par for the course.

    I think my favorite was voiced many years ago by my post-doc advisor regarding a particularly poor paper he was sent for review- “What is new isn’t true and what is true isn’t new.”

    As far as Mr Vogt, he forfeited any claim to being scientific when he said he had “irrefutably proven” something. The essence of science is falsafiability; every scientific postulate must be capable of being falsified. If a statement cannot be refuted, it is not scientific.

  127. avatar
    Suranis June 2, 2011 at 6:35 pm #

    Wild Bill H: If Obama had any credibility before this, he certainly has none left after releasing this jickey document.- be it real or fake.

    Yep, because telling the 100% truth about the birth story should mean people should trust Obama less, according to the laws of birtherstan.

  128. avatar
    Ragout June 2, 2011 at 9:34 pm #

    Thrifty:
    Seriously, this nonsensical cry of “omg release a JPG!” is one of those few nuggets I can provide my professional experience on.

    Why was the LFBC scanned as a PDF?Because it’s a DOCUMENT, and the White House is a competent, professional office environment.Birthers are screaming “OMG PDF!!!!LAYERS!THAT’S ODD!” without any explanation why.You just know that if it had come out as a BMP, the argument would be “WHY NOT A JPG OR PDF???”

    It’s true that jpg is a lousy format for documents, and yet, the pdf Obama produced apparently contains jpg images.

    In legal proceedings, the usual format is Group 4 TIFF. There are many software packages (“e-discovery” programs) available for producing this type of file in legal proceedings. The advantage of Group 4 TIFF is that it uses lossless compression, rather than lossy compression techniques such as jpg.

    If Obama had taken the release of his birth certificate seriously, he would have told his lawyers to release the birth certificate to the public just as if they were releasing the document to opposing counsel in discovery proceedings. Then, his lawyers would probably have used one of many e-discovery software packages, and the public have been able to see a high-resolution losslessly compressed image of his birth certificate. With such an image it would have been relatively easy to detect any irregularities in the document.

    Instead, Obama seems to have given the birth certificate to his web team, and they posted the low-resolution, lossily-compressed document we’re discussing. With this image, it’s very hard to detect irregularities, but that’s probably just a coincidence, right?

  129. avatar
    Obsolete June 2, 2011 at 9:53 pm #

    If Obama had released a massive TIFF file, birthers would have complained when it choked their 28kbps modems hooked up to their 286 PC’s.

  130. avatar
    foreigner June 2, 2011 at 10:12 pm #

    yes,Ragout,
    And if they had done it this way, they would have avoided lots
    of confusion. Think WND,Corsi,Taitz,Vogt .. all the blogs including this one.
    And last not least the dismissing motions.
    They should also have made a FAQ at the WH webpage to address
    possible and real questions.
    And a forum where people can discuss.
    Now, why didn’t they do it ?
    Too much effort, too expensive ? Hardly. Just some thousand $ .
    Really not much, when you see all the press coverage, the books written,
    the _many_ Americans who doubted and the still many -although reduced-
    people who still doubt.
    They should give an example how other organizations and people should handle
    similar situations. Instead they give an example of sloppy work, a ridiculing show
    at the correspondents’ dinner, a 3 year’s delay, a bad format, they don’t reply
    to questions, no FAQ no statement wrt. Corsi,Taitz,Vogt.
    That’s how your government works.
    Maybe there is still something that they want to hide, some questions
    that they don’t want to answer, so they are just afraid to talk about the issue.

  131. avatar
    Greg June 2, 2011 at 10:20 pm #

    Ragout, don’t give us that BS! TIFF is used because it integrates with discovery software like Summation and Concordance. If opposing counsel is using CaseMap, you produce in PDF! Even your link says PDF is an acceptable format:

    Group IV TIFF is the most common format for production of images of electronic documents, although a non-editable PDF is another image format that can be used for production.

    Now, before you try to bullsh*t again about discovery practices, remember that you’re talking with lawyers, some of whom have spent the last half decade dealing with e-discovery!

  132. avatar
    foreigner June 2, 2011 at 10:21 pm #

    Obsolete,
    they should have released a TIFF _and_ a pdf and a jpg
    and different resolutions.
    I anticipate people here saying … but birthers are never content, they would have
    requested more …
    Some few would, but not the majority. See the polls, how birtherism went down
    after the release. This would have increased with a more professional handling
    of the issue.
    You have to wonder whether they are trying to keep the thing alive
    deliberately, so to distract from other problems, so to build traps
    and then ridicule them, as done with Vogt here.
    And Berg,Lakin,Trump,Taitz,Corsi etc. before.

  133. avatar
    Greg June 2, 2011 at 10:23 pm #

    If you don’t like being ridiculed, don’t be ridiculous!

  134. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 2, 2011 at 10:26 pm #

    foreigner: They should also have made a FAQ at the WH webpage to address
    possible and real questions.
    And a forum where people can discuss.
    Now, why didn’t they do it ?
    Too much effort, too expensive ? Hardly.

    This sounds totally wacky to me. I think you are under two significant misapprehensions

    1) That there is much interest left in the public about birth certificates
    2) That any of the hard-core birthers are interested in anything the administration has to say, except to find something wrong with it.

    What you suggest would be the absolute dumbest thing the administration could do.

  135. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 2, 2011 at 10:34 pm #

    Ragout: Instead, Obama seems to have given the birth certificate to his web team, and they posted the low-resolution, lossily-compressed document we’re discussing.

    Err, well the document we’re discussing was what he posted on his web site, not something for a court.

  136. avatar
    Joey June 2, 2011 at 10:43 pm #

    foreigner:
    Obsolete,
    they should have released a TIFF _and_ a pdf and a jpg
    and different resolutions.
    I anticipate people here saying … but birthers are never content, they would have
    requested more …
    Some few would, but not the majority. See the polls, how birtherism went down
    after the release. This would have increased with a more professional handling
    of the issue.
    You have to wonder whether they are trying to keep the thing alive
    deliberately, so to distract from other problems, so to build traps
    and then ridicule them, as done with Vogt here.
    And Berg,Lakin,Trump,Taitz,Corsi etc. before.

    Congress can subpoena the original document if they have any remaining questoins. Congressional subpoenas carry the full force of law.
    As has already been mentioned, those who oppose Obama’s eligibility aren’t going to be swayed by any image that he posts on the internet.
    An investigative subcommittee in the House of Reprsentatives could be a neutral place to look at the birth certificate and entertain expert testimony.

  137. avatar
    foreigner June 2, 2011 at 10:44 pm #

    Dr.Conspiracy wrote:

    > This sounds totally wacky to me.

    just calling it wacky or crap or such doesn’t yet give you an argument.
    Would you want Vogt,me,RIO, and others using that same language
    as you do ?

    > I think you are under two significant misapprehensions
    > 1) That there is much interest left in the public about birth certificates

    “still 13% say he was probably or definitely born in another country”.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/147530/obama-birth-certificate-convinces-not-skeptics.aspx

    > 2) That any of the hard-core birthers are interested in anything the administration has to say,
    > except to find something wrong with it.

    even if – that still leaves you with with >10million softcore birthers

    > What you suggest would be the absolute dumbest thing the administration could do.

    this is clearly wrong

  138. avatar
    Greg June 2, 2011 at 10:54 pm #

    Foreigner, take just one of the arguments about the PDF – the curvature of the letters. How would that birther-concern be addressed by having three versions that showed the same curvature?

    Three versions would simply mean that we’d have version-specific concerns (the PDF has layers and the jpg doesn’t!) along with version-non-specific ones (the letters curve!).

    Quit whining about science and go try some! Scan a document into any format you want and see if you can see any of the artifacts complained of. Go show us how a birther-proof document can be created. Then we’ll peer-review it – I’ll bet we can show you all of Vogt’s artifacts!

  139. avatar
    foreigner June 2, 2011 at 10:59 pm #

    just a plain unprocessed scan on the WH webpage in addition to the .pdf
    with the layers would have been good

  140. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 2, 2011 at 11:00 pm #

    foreigner: this is clearly wrong

    There is a comment form on the White House web site, if you want to pursue your chat room/FAQ ideas with the administration.

    Your idea might be good for boosting WorldNetDaily book sales, but not for anything else.

  141. avatar
    Daniel June 2, 2011 at 11:39 pm #

    foreigner:
    just a plain unprocessed scan on the WH webpage in addition to the .pdf
    with the layers would have been good

    As usual you are missing the point entirely.

    The image released to the internet is not relevant, at all, period. The image released was nothing more than an item of convenience of the media and bloggers.

    The item of import is the copy of the original that is certified by the state of Hawaii.

    That’s it.

    Period.

    End of story.

    Your endless whining and dripping and moaning about what pixel should be on the left thrird row from the top if apples were oranges and wishes were horses, is completely non-relevant.

    He could have posted the image in crayon on wax paper pressed up against the oval office window and it wouldn’t have made any difference.

    The certified copy is real, therefore the BC is real, therefore the COLB is real… and you losers really lost…..AGAIN!

  142. avatar
    Ragout June 2, 2011 at 11:39 pm #

    Greg:
    Ragout, don’t give us that BS! TIFF is used because it integrates with discovery software like Summation and Concordance. If opposing counsel is using CaseMap, you produce in PDF! Even your link says PDF is an acceptable format:

    You’re missing the point.

    First, we know that Obama’s staff didn’t use ediscovery software at all. They just used the Mac’s built-in pdf creator. Second, the issue isn’t pdf vs. tiff — both file formats can serve as “wrappers” for many different image compression schemes including lossy compression formats such as jpg. Instead, the issue is lossless compression vs. lossy compression. The article about ediscovery I cited didn’t just say TIFF, it said “group IV TIFF.” Group IV is shorthand for a particular lossless compression scheme.

    When Obama runs for reelection, and someone finally has standing to sue him, he’s going to have to produce, at the very least, high-quality image of his birth certificate, not the low-quality image he posted on the web.

  143. avatar
    richCares June 2, 2011 at 11:41 pm #

    Birthers don’t quite get that the State of Hawaii has certified Obama’s long form Birth Certificate. Let me type that slowly so they can understand it
    .
    t h e . S t a t e. o f. H a w a i i. h a s. c e r t i f i e d. O b a m a ‘ s. l o n g. f o r m.
    B i r t h. C e r t i f i c a t e.
    .
    Is that Clear? The cats not in this tree so stop barking!

  144. avatar
    richCares June 2, 2011 at 11:45 pm #

    “When Obama runs for reelection, and someone finally has standing to sue him, he’s going to have to produce, at the very least, high-quality image of his birth certificate, not the low-quality image he posted on the web.”
    Any Day Now!
    grow up!

  145. avatar
    Rickey June 3, 2011 at 12:06 am #

    foreigner:

    “still 13% say he was probably or definitely born in another country”.

    13% who would not vote for Obama if he produced an affidavit from God attesting to the fact that he was born in Hawaii. He didn’t release the birth certificate to satisfy the cranks.

  146. avatar
    Rickey June 3, 2011 at 12:24 am #

    Ragout:

    When Obama runs for reelection, and someone finally has standing to sue him, he’s going to have to produce, at the very least, high-quality image of his birth certificate, not the low-quality image he posted on the web.

    No, he’ll just order fresh copies of his COLB, which will be accepted by any court. Case dismissed.

  147. avatar
    foreigner June 3, 2011 at 12:40 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy wrote:
    > There is a comment form on the White House web site, if you want to pursue
    > your chat room/FAQ ideas with the administration.

    I did use that ~1 week ago. No reply (yet)

    ———————————————————————————

    Daniel wrote:
    > The item of import is the copy of the original that is certified by the state of Hawaii.

    which however is kept secret

    > Period

    ahh, the periodistas. I met them before. Of course it rarely ended just by someone saying period.

    ——————————————————————————
    Rickey wrote:
    > 13% who would not vote for Obama if he produced an affidavit from God attesting to the fact
    > that he was born in Hawaii.

    Well, >40% actually according to the polls. The birth certificate is just one out of many
    aspects.
    The 13% is down from 24% on Apr.23 before the release. So it did have a considerable impact
    despite the sloppy way how it was handled and despite the Corsi et.al publicity.

    > He didn’t release the birth certificate to satisfy the cranks.

    ahh, 13% of American’s are cranks ?

    ————————————————————————————-

  148. avatar
    richCares June 3, 2011 at 12:47 am #

    “ahh, 13% of American’s are cranks ?”
    how would you know, you are a foreigner!

  149. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 3, 2011 at 1:40 am #

    When Obama runs for reelection, and someone finally has standing to sue him, he’s going to have to produce, at the very least, high-quality image of his birth certificate, not the low-quality image he posted on the web.

    No, he won’t. If some rival candidate managed to get standing, Obama could simply submit the paper, certified COLB to the court as part of his motion for summary judgment,, and the court would accept that. Full faith and credit. That would be the end of any such lawsuit.

  150. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 3, 2011 at 2:30 am #

    Rickey: No, he’ll just order fresh copies of his COLB, which will be accepted by any court. Case dismissed.

    My personal opinion is that he saved the 2007 issued birth certificate (the one on FactCheck and his original FightTheSmears Website) and submit that to court. I have absolutely no evidence to back it up, other than the lawyers looking forward to seeing the birther’s face when the judge declares solely based upon that document that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  151. avatar
    obsolete June 3, 2011 at 2:52 am #

    Vogt continues his campaign of lies and bullsh*t over at The Pest & EFail:

    MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have any thoughts on the short-form certificate which former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed he “put out on the internet?”

    MR. VOGT: I don’t know. I’ve seen it, but they blocked out the serial number on the upper right-hand corner because they probably didn’t have one. It’s unknown right now.

    More hilarity, lies, and sedition at:
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/06/02/document-analyst-files-criminal-complaint-with-the-fbi-on-obama-long-form-birth-certificate/

  152. avatar
    Daniel June 3, 2011 at 3:37 am #

    foreigner: which however is kept secret

    The stupid….it burns

  153. avatar
    foreigner June 3, 2011 at 3:52 am #

    Obsolete found this link:
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/06/02/document-analyst-files-criminal-complaint-with-the-fbi-on-obama-long-form-birth-certificate/

    I posted there:

    foreigner says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Friday, June 3, 2011 at 2:46 AM
    see here for an analysis of Vogt’s claims:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/reply-to-douglas-vogt/
    Vogt is aware of it, he posted there, but seems to ignore it

  154. avatar
    Scientist June 3, 2011 at 6:46 am #

    Ragout: Second, the issue isn’t pdf vs. tiff — both file formats can serve as “wrappers” for many different image compression schemes including lossy compression formats such as jpg. Instead, the issue is lossless compression vs. lossy compression

    This was all discussed by the Founding Fathers at the Constitutiional Convention. George Washington was a huge fan of pdfs. James Madison insisted tiffs were the way to go, while Al Hamilton was quite partial to jpegs. After a lengthy debate in which very nasty things were said, they went for beers (Sam Adams, of course) and compromised. They agreed that any format would be acceptable. They also decided that the Adams brews were both less filling and great tasting.

  155. avatar
    Majority Will June 3, 2011 at 7:30 am #

    Scientist: This was all discussed by the Founding Fathers at the Constitutiional Convention. George Washington was a huge fan of pdfs. James Madison insisted tiffs were the wayto go, while Al Hamilton was quite partial to jpegs.After a lengthy debate in which very nasty things were said, they went for beers (Sam Adams, of course) and compromised.They agreed that any format would be acceptable.They also decided that the Adams brews were both less filling and great tasting.

    And Aaron Burr despised jpegs. You know how that ended.

  156. avatar
    Greg June 3, 2011 at 9:41 am #

    Ragout, you’re just parroting words. Group IV tiffs are a type of compressed tiff that plays well with e-discovery software. And the article you cited said that any non-modifiable PDF was acceptable. You know why lawyers like to produce in PDF? because they don’t have to buy some new software. They can use off-the-shelf Mac software. The only time they use the e-discovery software is when they have to produce millions of documents and the only reason they use Tiff is because it works in the software that can handle millions of pages.

    Of course, lawyers live in the real world, where there’s not a conspiracy in every shadow and a forger in every mis-identified OCR character.

    The White House’s mistake was treating this issue like they would with opposing counsel as opposed to remembering they were dealing with paranoid nuts!

  157. avatar
    richCares June 3, 2011 at 9:57 am #

    “Vogt continues his campaign of lies and bullsh*t over at The Pest & EFail:”
    I went to that Freeper link and couldn’t believe the ignorance shown there. Bauer leaving is a sign of the end is near, that is unbelievable. They are so giddy over Obama’s pending arrest that you can see the brown stuff dribbling out of their mouths. How can anyone be that far from reality. Our visiting trolls are silly, but that freeper link is uncanny in its stupidity. I would have never believed that those kind of people actually exist. We need to seal all the sewers to prevent these people from getting out. The invasion of the Sewer People.

  158. avatar
    The Magic M June 3, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    richCares, you find just the same degree of stupidity among the posters at WND. I’ve been pinching them a little, but it gets old…

  159. avatar
    Arthur June 3, 2011 at 2:28 pm #

    foreigner:
    that still leaves you with with 10 million softcore birthers

    Playboy’s Unabashed Dictionary defines a “softcore birther” as, “Someone who questions the President’s legitimacy because all the really good parts of his birth certificate have been covered up.”

  160. avatar
    J.Potter June 3, 2011 at 6:17 pm #

    Doc, thanks for fighting the good fight on the technical front, I’ve been trying to do what i can in my spare time. Drives me nuts that people may be bamboozled by this. However, Vogt is a crank with a history of grandiose claims … a perusal of his website, http://www.vectorpub.com provides all one needs to know. The contact info on that site and his other company’s site (Archive Index), and his report, are all the same. I wish it was a joke!

    —John

  161. avatar
    P. Ewing June 4, 2011 at 4:04 am #

    I have been involved in creating image processing software and systems since the early 1980′s. I was the founder and CEO of a company that developed and sold hundreds of millions of dollars of image editing and document image processing software and systems to Lockheed Martin, GM, Ford, Pacific Gas and Electric, Boeing, NATO, and numerous other fortune 500 companies. I have personally written hundreds of thousands of lines of code and developed many image processing algorithms, I eventually employed over 50 full time programmers in this field.

    The PDF talk is a distraction. The proof that this document is a forgery lies directly in the image, in the pixels themselves. Any competent forensic document analyst or Adobe systems engineer can identify the numerous crude mistakes made applying the fonts to the scanned bit map of the form which itself was likely lifted from another scanned birth certificate cobbled together then whited out and clone stamped.

    Every software company leaves a signature in its routines just by the method in which the pixels are processed and layered into the image. In my company for example we developed a special “rubber sheeting” routine that was particularly unique in how we shifted the image one pixel in each row spread out over millions of pixels to square the image in the x an y axis. I and any of my software engineers could easily identify our routine by examining the image in detail and point out where the shift points were, but I doubt anyone else not familiar with the algorithm we developed could find it.

    In other areas we performed raster to vector conversions then processed and re rasterizing the image for final presentation. We could easily identify areas of the image that received this treatment but few lay persons or even experts would be able to detect it without us pointing it out or being familiar with the algorithm we used to accomplish it.

    The kerning of the type alone in this Obama BC image is proof this document was forged on a computer and not created with a typewriter and scanned in. This case needs to go to court and lets call in a number of forensic image analysts and image processing software engineers to testify. There is not doubt in my mind that this document is a forgery. This president is a fake.

  162. avatar
    Daniel June 4, 2011 at 4:37 am #

    P. Ewing: I have been involved in creating image processing software and systems since the early 1980′s. I was the founder and CEO of a company that developed and sold hundreds of millions of dollars of image editing and document image processing software blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahcould easily identify areas of the image that received this treatment but few lay persons or even experts would be able to detect it without us pointing it out or being familiar with the algorithm we used to accomplish it.

    The kerning of the type alone in this Obama BC image is proof this document was forged on a computer and not created with a typewriter and scanned in. This case needs to go to court and lets call in a number of forensic image analysts and image processing software engineers to testify. There is not doubt in my mind that this document is a forgery. This president is a fake.

    Gee, another self proclaimed expert who doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about…. and he’s a birther too…. what’re the odds?

    As far as your analysis goes…. you’ve been watching too much “Law and Order”. You know most of the “science” on that show is crap right? Fortunately anyone actually familiar with Computer science can see right through your technobabble.

    Too bad for you that the document the image was taken from is certified by the State of Hawaii, and so any criticisms your (ahem) “expertise” gives rise to is completely and utterly irrelevant.

    Go back to Orly’s website where you belong.

  163. avatar
    Majority Will June 4, 2011 at 5:16 am #

    Daniel: As far as your analysis goes…. you’ve been watching too much “Law and Order”. You know most of the “science” on that show is crap right? Fortunately anyone actually familiar with Computer science can see right through your technobabble.

    I wondered why I heard this sound as I skimmed over that steaming pile of idiotic birther crap.

  164. avatar
    foreigner June 4, 2011 at 5:25 am #

    P.Ewing, please ignore these typical attacks and insults here.
    As I understand it, they got 2 real scans from Hawaii which were
    presented to the press and photos are available here:
    http://cbsla.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/113207051-e1303920915143.jpg
    or here: http://lockerz.com/s/96540937
    Then they made the .pdf from it for the White House webpage which was edited,
    processed so to increase readability

  165. avatar
    Majority Will June 4, 2011 at 6:08 am #

    foreigner: P.Ewing, please ignore these typical attacks and insults here.

    You’re the humble voice of reason?

    What makes you qualified for that exactly?

  166. avatar
    Majority Will June 4, 2011 at 6:25 am #

    foreigner:
    P. Ewing, please ignore these typical attacks and insults here.

    foreigner June 3, 2011 at 6:53 am (Quote) #
    but what is this thread about, why are we here ?

    So, please enlighten me. Why are you here?

  167. avatar
    Sef June 4, 2011 at 6:30 am #

    Majority Will: foreigner June 3, 2011 at 6:53 am(Quote) #
    but what is this thread about, why are we here ?

    So, please enlighten me. Why are you here?

    “I came for an argument.”
    “No, you didn’t.”

  168. avatar
    foreigner June 4, 2011 at 6:34 am #

    we are (mainly) here to figure out the truth about the
    Obama birth certificate (conspiracy?) theories.

    the site owner wrote above (top right):
    —————————————————–
    Welcome
    Obama Conspiracy Theories is your one-stop destination for conspiracy theories and fringe views about Barack Obama. Having an argument with your buddies at the office? You’re in the right place. Check out our featured articles. If you don’t agree with what you see, feel free to add your thoughts to the over 94,000 comments others have left.
    The debunker’s guide to Obama conspiracy theories

  169. avatar
    foreigner June 4, 2011 at 6:35 am #

    Majority Will: You’re the humble voice of reason?What makes you qualified for that exactly?

    not just shouting : crap,crap,crap,…

    (that was easy to answer)

  170. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 4, 2011 at 6:49 am #

    foreigner: As I understand it, they got 2 real scans from Hawaii which were
    presented to the press and photos are available here:

    No, they got PAPER from Hawaii.

    The Hawaii authorities went to the bound book where the original birth certificate is kept. They took the book, opened it up, and laid it on a photocopy machine, and made 2 photocopies onto security paper.

    Then they took the 2 sheets of security paper that had a copy of the original birth certificate, and they put a date stamp and the certification stamp (the one with the Onaka signature) on each… and then they also stamped each with a seal that makes an impression on the paper. Or maybe they put the seal on first, and then the date & certification stamps… it doesn’t really matter.

    Obama’s lawyer flew to Hawaii, went to the Health Department office, picked up the two paper, certified copies, then flew to Washington. Presumably, one of the birth certificates was put in a locked cabinet somewhere for safekeeping. Then a white house staffer made a bunch of black & white photocopies to distribute to the press. The b/w photocopies of the paper certification look like this:
    http://cbsla.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/113207051-e1303920915143.jpg

    Then they brought the paper to a press conference and let some journalists touch and feel it if they wanted. Savannah Guthrie took a picture,, probably with her cell phone:
    http://lockerz.com/s/96540937

    Then they scanned the certificate to make a PDF to upload to the whitehouse.gov web site. That can be viewed here:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate

    So in the White House there are TWO separate certified birth certificates, bearing copies of the so-called “long form”.

  171. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 4, 2011 at 6:52 am #

    NOTHING on the document matters EXCEPT the stamp and seal on the paper documents.

    The Hawaii Health Department issued a press release with this statement:

    On April 25, 2011, pursuant to President Obama’s request, Director Fuddy personally witnessed the copying of the original Certificate of Live Birth and attested to the authenticity of the two copies. Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the
    copies.

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf

    There is no getting around that.

  172. avatar
    Sef June 4, 2011 at 7:20 am #

    Expelliarmus:
    NOTHING on the document matters EXCEPT the stamp and seal on the paper documents.

    The Hawaii Health Department issued a press release with this statement:

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf

    There is no getting around that.

    To be fair, there is the little matter of the data to which the stamp, signature and seal attest.

  173. avatar
    foreigner June 4, 2011 at 7:36 am #

    so :
    ————————————————————————————————————————————-
    They took 2 scans (or photocopies) from the birth-certificates bound book
    on security paper (“paperscans”) , sealed and stamped from Hawaii.
    Bw-photocopies of these were presented to the press in DC :
    http://cbsla.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/113207051-e1303920915143.jpg

    At least one reporter also made a colorphoto of a paperscan and touched the seal:
    http://lockerz.com/s/96540937

    They created a .pdf from a paperscan and edited and procesed it to increase
    readability :
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
    —————————————————————————————————————————————
    put it in the FAQ !

    I think they should also have presented this short story above and an unprocessed
    pure colour image scan of the “paperscan” -besides the .pdf- on the WhiteHouse webpage.

  174. avatar
    Scientist June 4, 2011 at 7:36 am #

    P Ewing When I googled “Ewing image processing” I came up with quite a few publications on Ewing’s sarcoma, a type of bone cancer.. The only person who came up was a Robert L Ewing, who is at Trier University in Germany, which doesn’t gibe with your supposed background (nor would he be P Ewing). Now i know people use screen names here, but when you come proclaiming great expertise in a specialized area, it is incumbent on you to suppport those claims:

    So, I ask:
    1. What is the name of this company you founded? What is your real name? Surely, you are not ashamed to say.
    2. You speak of having image processing software engineers testifying in court. Why would any court be interested in that, since it is the paper document that has legal standing, not the pdf?

  175. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 4, 2011 at 8:20 am #

    P. Ewing: I have been involved in creating image processing software and systems since the early 1980′s … Any competent forensic document analyst or Adobe systems engineer can identify the numerous crude mistakes made applying the fonts to the scanned bit map of the form which itself was likely lifted from another scanned birth certificate cobbled together then whited out and clone stamped.

    So why has no “competent forensic document analyst or Adobe systems engineer” come forward with such an identification?

    Your comment fits the general category of the fallacy of “appeal to an anonymous expert.” I have no use for anonymous experts.

  176. avatar
    Majority Will June 4, 2011 at 10:46 am #

    foreigner: not just shouting :crap,crap,crap,…

    (that was easy to answer)

    So, instead of shouting crap you just type it?

    Nice strategy. :-P

  177. avatar
    Majority Will June 4, 2011 at 10:48 am #

    Sef: “I came for an argument.”
    “No, you didn’t.”

    I most certainly did!

    That’s it. Good morning.

  178. avatar
    Majority Will June 4, 2011 at 11:03 am #

    foreigner:
    we are (mainly) here to figure out the truth about the
    Obama birth certificate (conspiracy?) theories.

    the site owner wrote above (top right):
    —————————————————–
    Welcome
    Obama Conspiracy Theories is your one-stop destination for conspiracy theories and fringe views about Barack Obama. Having an argument with your buddies at the office? You’re in the right place. Check out our featured articles. If you don’t agree with what you see, feel free to add your thoughts to the over 94,000 comments others have left.The debunker’s guide to Obama conspiracy theories

    What a wishy washy non-answer. Not mainly but entirely.

    Re: “we are (mainly) here” Who is we? Are there several of you in your head or do you have the privilege of speaking for strangers?

    And I didn’t ask for Doc’s site explanation. I can read and comprehend. So, the patronizing part of your non-response is a ridiculous and puerile diversion.

    I asked, “So, please enlighten me. Why are you here?”

    Not we and not the site owner. Why are you here?

    And perhaps most important of all, how do you distinguish between truth and fiction?

  179. avatar
    Daniel June 4, 2011 at 12:40 pm #

    foreigner: put it in the FAQ !

    I think they should also have presented this short story above and an unprocessed
    pure colour image scan of the “paperscan” -besides the .pdf- on the WhiteHouse webpage.

    We’ll be sure to give your opinion, of what the White house should do, all the consideration it deserves.

  180. avatar
    Daniel June 4, 2011 at 12:43 pm #

    foreigner: P.Ewing, please ignore these typical attacks and insults here.

    Yeah you wouldn’t want to start doubting your own delusions by paying attention to the derision of common sense….

  181. avatar
    Daniel June 4, 2011 at 12:45 pm #

    foreigner: not just shouting :crap,crap,crap,…

    True, you’re not shouting “crap”

    you’re just shouting crap

  182. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 4, 2011 at 2:26 pm #

    foreigner: P.Ewing, please ignore these typical attacks and insults here.

    The howling mob can be quite civil once they get used to you. Mr. Ewing, however, looks like a fake and no one claiming to be an expert just on their own say-so is going to get anywhere here.

  183. avatar
    foreigner June 4, 2011 at 2:47 pm #

    “Oh, I’m sorry. This is abuse. Argument is 12A next door.”

  184. avatar
    Expelliarmus June 4, 2011 at 4:18 pm #

    Sef: To be fair, there is the little matter of the data to which the stamp, signature and seal attest.

    The attestation by the custodian of records of that data would be CONCLUSIVE in any court of law. If Onaka showed up in court and testified to the same facts that were stated in the press release, there would be no getting around that. And the certification seal and stamp on the document itself would generally be accepted in lieu of Onaka’s testimony.

    The fact that there is a RECORD of Obama’s birth, and that the agency in charge of maintaining such records can CERTIFY that such record exists, is sufficient.

  185. avatar
    Betty June 6, 2011 at 6:24 pm #

    My Opinion
    This is a legitimate birth certificate. I have done a lot of research on birth certificates and have helped adopted friends find their biological parents. Births are not registered by the time of birth in any state. The hospital Barrack Obama was born in did not apply for birth certificates until the baby was dismissed from the hospital. Thus if they had a baby that had died a day before Barrack was born, there would be no birth certificate issued at all for that baby since it never went home and so would never had applied for a “certificate of live birth” after it had died. The number isn’t “held” for that dead baby and thus switched for Barrack Obama 48 years later. As for the twins that were born before Barrack Obama that have numbers that are sequentially after Barrack Obama’s number, chances are that since they were twins they were premature and held in the hospital longer than Barrack who was born a day later. If Barrack a single birth, healthy baby was sent home first, his certificate number would be listed sequentially before the twins if they were smaller and held in the hospital several weeks. Remember its not listed sequentially by the time of birth…it is listed as the certificates of live birth are forwarded to the state from the hospital after the baby’s release. After this number is recorded it is impossible to change…even after adoption…the birth certificate number stays the same…only parents name changes.

  186. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 6, 2011 at 6:58 pm #

    Betty: Births are not registered by the time of birth in any state. The hospital Barrack Obama was born in did not apply for birth certificates until the baby was dismissed from the hospital. Thus if they had a baby that had died a day before Barrack was born, there would be no birth certificate issued at all for that baby since it never went home and so would never had applied for a “certificate of live birth” after it had died.

    You are mistaken. Hawaii defines a “live birth” as:

    “Live birth” is the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception that did, after complete expulsion or extraction from the mother, breathe or show any other evidence of life such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or movement of voluntary muscle, whether or not the umbilical cord was cut or the placenta attached.

    Hospital discharges have nothing to do with the filing of birth certificates and Hawaiian law in 1961 required prompt filing and made no exception for long hospital stays. In Maryland, for example, the birth certificate must be reported by an institution to the department of health within 72 hours of the birth (Md. Code, Health-Gen. §4-208).

    However, this also means that the deceased infant still has a birth record in Hawaii, not an empty slot.

    By the way, the Nordyke twins were born the day after Obama, not the day before.

  187. avatar
    John Potter June 6, 2011 at 10:37 pm #

    The kerning of the type alone in this Obama BC image is proof this document was forged on a computer and not created with a typewriter and scanned in…

    When these hacks bring up “kerning”, it saves me a lot of time in determining the level of their technical ignorance. To be so easily impressed and think it will have the same effect on others …Oy!

  188. avatar
    Keith June 7, 2011 at 12:12 am #

    Majority Will: I most certainly did!

    Look here, my good man!

    Just saying the opposite of what somebody else said is not an argument.

  189. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 7, 2011 at 2:19 am #

    Keith: Just saying the opposite of what somebody else said is not an argument.

    Yes it is.

  190. avatar
    The Magic M June 7, 2011 at 3:26 am #

    Just busted another Vogt claim:

    He writes “The date stamps have two different colors and sizes” (page 8, last paragraph of “4.”).
    However using the hi-res photograph from http://cbsla.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/113207051-e1303920915143.jpg I was able to overlay the stamp in box 22 with the one in box 20 (rotated to +4 degrees) perfectly.
    Sizewise, of course, the two stamps are not identical, just in case someone wants to claim they were cloned, too.

    The letter size of the stamp is 40 pixels on that image. I wonder how Vogt has seen “different sizes” in such a lo-res thingy as the PDF.

  191. avatar
    John Potter June 7, 2011 at 3:58 am #

    if only the White House had posted a high-res tiff, raw, o rjpeg, so much bandwidth could have been saved. of course the birthers would still be claiming forgery, but at least it wouldn’t be at this level of stupid.

    Hey, check out Vogt’s company address … a strip center in Bellevue, WA. Impressive digs for a world reknowned archaeologist / document expert / scanner import king.

    12819 S.E. 38th Street
    Suite 115
    Bellevue, WA 98006

    publicly available at http://www.vectorpub.com, same phone # as his “real” company Archive Index … you know, he could easily disavow this site, if he hadn’t linked to his “report” from it LOL

    Stupidest criminals nominee.

  192. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 7, 2011 at 5:14 am #

    Doc, gotta hand it to you, it’s not often that one reads such a pile of irrational BS passed off as analysis.

    Try again when your brain starts to work.

  193. avatar
    The Magic M June 7, 2011 at 7:26 am #

    > it’s not often that one reads such a pile of irrational BS passed off as analysis

    Your assessment of Vogt’s “work” is correct.

    > Try again when your brain starts to work.

    I will start a business selling irony meters. Today. I mean, right now. Call me at 555-GULL-E-BULL.

  194. avatar
    Majority Will June 7, 2011 at 8:11 am #

    LineInTheSand:
    Doc, gotta hand it to you, it’s not often that one reads such a pile of irrational BS passed off as analysis.

    Try again when your brain starts to work.

    Don’t be a coward. Explain what you mean. Use big words even if you have to look them up.

  195. avatar
    Majority Will June 7, 2011 at 8:15 am #

    Keith: Look here, my good man!

    Just saying the opposite of what somebody else said is not an argument.

    If you want me to go on arguing, you’ll have to pay for another five minutes.

  196. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 7, 2011 at 9:00 am #

    LineInTheSand: Doc, gotta hand it to you, it’s not often that one reads such a pile of irrational BS passed off as analysis.

    You’re not giving me a lot to go on.

    When I write these things, I try to make them understandable and well-reasoned. I would not be surprised if I left out a step in the argument or glossed over something that’s obvious to me not to everyone else, or assumed something I know that not everyone else does. Although I try, it’s hard to put ones self in another’s shoes.

    So if you want to help me improve an article (even if that means changing its conclusion) you really need to ask specific questions or point to specific things you find incomplete or in error.

  197. avatar
    Sef June 7, 2011 at 9:25 am #

    Majority Will: If you want me to go on arguing, you’ll have to pay for another five minutes.

    Is that Metric or Imperial minutes?

  198. avatar
    Majority Will June 7, 2011 at 11:35 am #

    Sef: Is that Metric or Imperial minutes?

    I’ve told you once.

  199. avatar
    obsolete June 7, 2011 at 2:58 pm #

    Sef: Is that Metric or Imperial minutes?

    You still believe in the metric system?

  200. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 8, 2011 at 5:45 am #

    Hey Doc, what exactly do you hold a Phd in? MD?? If not, I guess I’ll start my critique of you and your article by calling you a ‘liar’ or, maybe, just a ‘crank’.

  201. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 8, 2011 at 5:46 am #

    Next, a posting on a HI web site is not ‘proof’ by any stretch of the law or imagination. It’s simply a posting by a faceless (possibly unlawfully complicit) bureaucrat, nothing more, nothing less.

  202. avatar
    Bovril June 8, 2011 at 5:50 am #

    Tut tut Liar In The Sand

    The documentation linked to or referenced to IS the law, don”t tell me, your one of those cretinous muppets who argued when the original (and legally sufficient) “shorter form” BC was published with the image with a redacted serial number somehow magically invalidated the original.

    So do tell, what are YOUR professional qualifications?

  203. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 8, 2011 at 5:51 am #

    There is MOST CERTAINLY clear differences between the terms “Certificate of Live Birth” and a “birth certificate.” Not only are they different words in different word orders, moron, but they have different, even precise meaning, as vital health records. I really don’t have time to give everyone here a lesson in health record terminology, so research yourself, particularly looking at what constitutes a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’, a ‘Certification of Live Birth’, and the general terms of ‘birth certificates’ or ‘birth records’ in HI parlance.

  204. avatar
    Scientist June 8, 2011 at 5:52 am #

    LineInTheSand: Hey Doc, what exactly do you hold a Phd in? MD??

    What exactly is a PhD in MD? I have a PhD and I did live in Maryland for a time…So I guess I was a PhD in MD.

    LineInTheSand: Next, a posting on a HI web site is not proof’ by any stretch of the law or imagination.

    OK, I’ll bite. What is proof? And do YOU have any? If nothing on the internet is of any value to you, why are YOU here?

  205. avatar
    Scientist June 8, 2011 at 5:54 am #

    LineInTheSand: I really don’t have time to give everyone here a lesson in health record terminology

    You’re a busy man, so why come here??

  206. avatar
    Bovril June 8, 2011 at 5:54 am #

    Nope. Liar In the Sand, not in the eyes of the law, piss off read the law and come back with PROOF otherwise child

  207. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 8, 2011 at 5:54 am #

    The only qualifications I’ll need to share with you at this time, Bovril, is a fairly rational mind, and an undoubtedly better ability to spell.

  208. avatar
    Bovril June 8, 2011 at 5:55 am #

    To be EXACT, in the laws of Hawai’i, there I even gave you a helping hand

  209. avatar
    Bovril June 8, 2011 at 5:56 am #

    Still waiting on an actual, rational, fact based refutation child

  210. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 8, 2011 at 5:57 am #

    HAHAHA…..You pseudo-’scientists’ and ‘intellects’ are killin’ me!! Stop it. lol.

  211. avatar
    Scientist June 8, 2011 at 5:59 am #

    LineInTheSand: You pseudo-’scientists’ and intellects’ are killin’ me!!

    So you are typing from beyond the grave?

  212. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 8, 2011 at 6:01 am #

    Bovril, I’m trying really hard, trust me, to make sense of your meanderings and answer you. What exactly are you talking about? What law are you mumbling about (cite title number, please), and after that, what relevance?

  213. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 8, 2011 at 6:02 am #

    So, ‘Doc’, that Master’s degree you cited in your credentials suddenly got promoted to a Doctorate, within seconds, it seems. Wow! What home study course did you Fedex in to get that??

  214. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 8, 2011 at 6:14 am #

    The bald-faced lie is still perpetuated in your article that citizens cannot acquire a certified copy of any vital record they have in HI Health, long or short form. Almost any personal record is fully retrievable – with some exceptions (i.e., criminal or classified files). Anything else is in violation of FOIA, which HI signed up to.

    This is yet another myth that HI Health (and you) continue to create and foster. In protection of whom, or what??

  215. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 8, 2011 at 6:19 am #

    ‘The idea that Obama could use a federal auditor to get him a copy of his birth certificate is ludicrous.’ /////No, more correctly, the idea that Obama NEEDED to use ANYONE to get him a copy of his birth certificate is ludicrous. All he or anyone has to do is have a legitimate interest in their OWN RECORDS, and fill out the request form IN SUFFICIENT CLARITY, then pay a small fee. This will get you a certified, stamped copy of the original record, not a computer-generated ‘short form’, if that’s not suitable to your purpose. This is all spelled out quite clearly in current HI law.

  216. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 8, 2011 at 6:27 am #

    ‘The Sequential Number is a fraud.Enough has been written here about that. See for example: Obama’s birth certificate number.’ /////////////// hahaaa…I’m sorry, I’ve got to skip about a dozen pieces of pure BS and go right to this one, as I’m about done for today. Your explanation that ‘enough has been written about that’….is quite comprehensive – NOT! So I go to the link and read a page or two of completely BS speculation and hypothesis, none of it based on solid fact or actual HI Health data on HI filing procedures. Incredible, ‘Doc’!!

  217. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 8, 2011 at 6:28 am #

    Sayonara, I’ll be back to tear you a new rear end on some of your other nonsense later.

  218. avatar
    Majority Will June 8, 2011 at 6:57 am #

    LineInTheSand:
    The only qualifications I’ll need to share with you at this time, Bovril, is a fairly rational mind, and an undoubtedly better ability to spell.

    But you didn’t know how FedEx is spelled and that it isn’t a verb?

    Re: “What home study course did you Fedex in to get that??”

    Thanks for proving you’re a nitpicking hypocrite and a mindless douche.

    Enjoy your new rear.

  219. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 8, 2011 at 7:02 am #

    Kiss my a$$, pimple-dick…errr….Bovril. Hugs and kisses.

  220. avatar
    Majority Will June 8, 2011 at 7:47 am #

    LineInTheSand:
    Kiss my a$$, pimple-dick…errr….Bovril.Hugs and kisses.

    Thanks for taking the bait. So eloquent and rational.

    It must be terribly lonely and frustrating for a bizarre and emotional troll like you knowing that you’re so gosh darned smart and yet you’re impotent, irrelevant and pitied.

    It’s a conundrum.

  221. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 8, 2011 at 7:50 am #

    LineInTheSand: none of it based on solid fact or actual HI Health data on HI filing procedures. Incredible, ‘Doc’!!

    What I wrote is consistent with what is known about actual filing procedures (not all that much), and the certificate numbers on known certificates. By presenting a consistent and plausible explanation of the numbers observed, I proved that that the birther claims that the certificate number is evidence of a fake are unfounded.

    I cannot prove that Obama’s certificate number is correct based on procedure, but then the birthers cannot prove otherwise. Given the statement from Hawaii that the long form Obama released is indeed a copy of his original long form, the issue should therefore be settled.

  222. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 8, 2011 at 7:53 am #

    LineInTheSand: the idea that Obama NEEDED to use ANYONE to get him a copy of his birth certificate is ludicrous.

    You are apparently unaware of the Hawaii Department of health policy that says only the computer-generated form is issued as a certified copy.

  223. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 8, 2011 at 8:00 am #

    LineInTheSand: So, ‘Doc’, that Master’s degree you cited in your credentials suddenly got promoted to a Doctorate, within seconds, it seems.

    I don’t have a doctorate, and never claimed to. See:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/dr-conspiracy/

  224. avatar
    foreigner June 8, 2011 at 8:14 am #

    Vogt had been shown links to the other copies in this thread

    ————————————————–
    “In other words the whole story is not true,” Vogt said. “The Press Secretary proudly stated that
    he personally put up the PDF on the White House web site and that’s probably all they got,
    was the PDF by e-mail.”

    ———————————————-
    Vogt notes the Obama PDF birth certificate file was supposed to have come directly
    from the Hawaii DOH office.
    ———————————————-

    Instead, Vogt asserts, the White House released, perhaps by mistake, a nine-layer Adobe
    Illustrator file that had been used to forge the document.

    Read more: Why did Obama release electronic birth certificate? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=308277#ixzz1OgYuj5eW

  225. avatar
    Greg June 8, 2011 at 8:33 am #

    Why did Obama release electronic birth certificate?

    Why didn’t Obama put the physical copy of his certified birth certificate on the Internet? The PHYSICAL copy?

    The mind boggles!

  226. avatar
    Majority Will June 8, 2011 at 8:57 am #

    foreigner:
    Vogt had been shown links to the other copies in this thread

    ————————————————–
    “In other words the whole story is not true,” Vogt said. “The Press Secretary proudly stated that
    he personally put up the PDF on the White House web site and that’s probably all they got,
    was the PDF by e-mail.”

    ———————————————-
    Vogt notes the Obama PDF birth certificate file was supposed to have come directly
    from the Hawaii DOH office.
    ———————————————-

    Instead, Vogt asserts, the White House released, perhaps by mistake, a nine-layer Adobe
    Illustrator file that had been used to forge the document.

    Read more: Why did Obama release electronic birth certificate? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=308277#ixzz1OgYuj5eW

    What’s your point?

    Why do keep ignoring rational responses to your posts and sometimes bizarre assertions?

    Do you think citing World Net Daily has credibility? Really?

    Are you accusing the state of Hawaii of malfeasance? You must be but I can’t understand why.

    Do you have any credible evidence?

    Why are you here? And why do you keep posting nonsense?

    What’s your obsession with a foreign country? Are you renouncing your own nationality?

  227. avatar
    Bovril June 8, 2011 at 9:15 am #

    Still waiting Liar In the Sand for that factual based rebuttal, child….You know the one where you lie about a COLB not being a legal BC.

    Now in the REAL world, if a muppet like you makes an insane statemnt, they have to back it up with a fact or two, like, I don’t know referring to relevant law.

    So, show us all where there is any any statute in Hawai’i where it says the COLB does not have the full legal validity of a BC.

    I’ll give you a hint about where you fuck up, look at the bottom of the COLB and read the little sentence about “This copy serves as……”

    Oooooh looky, there is the relevant statute, shame, Liar lies again and FAILS.

  228. avatar
    Daniel June 8, 2011 at 12:14 pm #

    LineInTheSand: I really don’t have time to give everyone here a lesson in health record terminology,

    Yeah ’cause the two or three years of training you’d have to go through to get to Doc’s level of expertise would be much too long to wait.

  229. avatar
    Daniel June 8, 2011 at 12:17 pm #

    LineInTheSand:
    Next, a posting on a HI web site is not proof’ by any stretch of the law or imagination.It’s simply a posting by a faceless (possibly unlawfully complicit) bureaucrat, nothing more, nothing less.

    And yet, Obama is STILL the President.

    That must really rip your shorts eh?

  230. avatar
    Thrifty June 8, 2011 at 12:24 pm #

    If I say completely wrong things, and say a lot of them in quick succession, but act confident and insulting while I’m doing it, that counts the same as saying correct things, doesn’t it? Two wrongs don’t make a right but twenty do.

    I’m thinking of going undercover with some Birthers, and need to figure out how to act like one.

  231. avatar
    Daniel June 8, 2011 at 1:03 pm #

    Thrifty: I’m thinking of going undercover with some Birthers, and need to figure out how to act like one.

    Does your HMO cover elective pre-frontal lobotomy?

  232. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 8, 2011 at 1:45 pm #

    Thrifty: If I say completely wrong things, and say a lot of them in quick succession, but act confident and insulting while I’m doing it, that counts the same as saying correct things, doesn’t it? Two wrongs don’t make a right but twenty do.I’m thinking of going undercover with some Birthers, and need to figure out how to act like one.

    Go to Walmart and buy your clothes from there. At least you’ll fit in clothing wise

  233. avatar
    Thrifty June 8, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Go to Walmart and buy your clothes from there. At least you’ll fit in clothing wise

    Hey, I been doing that for years. I loves me good, cheap apparel.

  234. avatar
    Bovril June 8, 2011 at 2:56 pm #

    So, which one is you…..? 8-)

    http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?page_id=9798

  235. avatar
    obsolete June 8, 2011 at 3:21 pm #

    Well, LineInTheSand: came here and demolished us with his two-sentence replies and “LOL’s”. I guess he proved everything and declared victory, so now we should just close the site down.
    When does Obama resign and offer the Presidency to LineInTheSand:?

    (Better name for LineInTheSand:: FartInTheWind)

  236. avatar
    Majority Will June 8, 2011 at 3:30 pm #

    obsolete: (Better name for LineInTheSand:: FartInTheWind)

    Or Douglas Vogt?

  237. avatar
    foreigner June 8, 2011 at 4:26 pm #

    I found a better picture here:
    http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/BirthCertificateHighResolution.jpg

  238. avatar
    Scientist June 8, 2011 at 4:32 pm #

    foreigner: I found a better picture here:http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/BirthCertificateHighResolution.jpg

    Looks good to me. It says he was born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, which accords withall of the facts. I would only be concerned if it showed a different place of birth or`date.

    Is that clear?

  239. avatar
    Majority Will June 8, 2011 at 4:35 pm #

    foreigner:
    I found a better picture here:
    http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/BirthCertificateHighResolution.jpg

    You’re so clever. But I found a much better picture here:

    http://cdn1.newsone.com/files/2010/06/winter_storm_signature_5502.jpg

  240. avatar
    Daniel June 8, 2011 at 5:43 pm #

    foreigner:
    I found a better picture here:
    http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/BirthCertificateHighResolution.jpg

    You found another irrelevant picture… in high res no less

    Well good for you.

  241. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 8, 2011 at 6:05 pm #

    Daniel: You found another irrelevant picture… in high res no less

    The picture is interesting in a few respects. This appears to be a hi-res scan of the long form that the White House handed out to the press.

    Because this document was given to the press BEFORE the long form was scanned and put on the White House web site, we can assume that it didn’t come from the scan, but is an independent copy, probably something out of a photocopy machine.

    One notes that when zooming in on this copy, we don’t see some of the artifacts caused by the PDF optimization. A good example is the last digit of the certificate number. In the PDF, the “1″ is included in the low-resolution color background layer and when one zooms in, it looks different from the other digits that are bitmaps. In this image (again an image that precedes the PDF and any criticism of it) there’s no visible difference in the digits. Also the “TXE” artifact pretty much goes away.

  242. avatar
    Daniel June 8, 2011 at 10:54 pm #

    Yes it is somewhat interesting, but as I’ve tried to point out to Foreigner, not relevant as to whether the BC is a forgery or not. So long as the copy of the long form is certified by the state of Hawaii, the condition or appearance of any image of that long form, is irrelevant.

    Of course I don’t have to tell you that, Doc.

    You’re sane ;-)

  243. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 9, 2011 at 3:20 am #

    Good day, pseudo-scientists and all,

    Let’s start with this absurd statement:

    from Daniel June 8, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    ,…not relevant as to whether the BC is a forgery or not. So long as the copy of the long form is certified by the state of Hawaii, the condition or appearance of any image of that long form, is irrelevant.’

    Wow, stunning in its ignorance of law. If the ‘condition’ of the document, let’s assume, was that it was a proven forgery, all that would mean is that the person who ‘certified’ that document would be an official who may be intentionally acting as an accomplice to a felony offense. You people who agreed with Daniel’s statement – that a ‘certification’ of any form makes it ok and legal in all cases…are…well…morons.

  244. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 9, 2011 at 3:26 am #

    Here’s another moron:

    Bovril June 8, 2011 at 9:15 am

    ‘Still waiting Liar In the Sand for that factual based rebuttal, child….You know the one where you lie about a COLB not being a legal BC.’

    OK, Bovril-knob, can you please explain WTF you’re talking about? Where did I say anything about a COLB not being legal? Give me my exact quote, please? Take your medication for mental illness, you’re hallucinating again.

    It would help our discussions if you tried to remain rational and not just make up BS statements – but, then again, that’s what most of this entire post is.

  245. avatar
    Daniel June 9, 2011 at 3:30 am #

    LineInTheSand: Wow, stunning in its ignorance of law. If the condition’ of the document, let’s assume, was that it was a proven forgery, all that would mean is that the person who certified’ that document would be an official who may be intentionally acting as an accomplice to a felony offense. You people who agreed with Daniel’s statement – that a certification’ of any form makes it ok and legal in all cases…are…well…morons.

    Woulda/shoulda/coulda

    How far do you think that goes in a court of law?

    And you call us ignorant?

    I feel so very sorry for you

  246. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 9, 2011 at 3:33 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy June 8, 2011

    ‘You are apparently unaware of the Hawaii Department of health policy that says only the computer-generated form is issued as a certified copy.’

    Doc, please quote me the exact HI DOH policy and show me the source of this. This has been disproven numerous times, it is a statement that Fukino may have made verbally, and at least one obamanaut lawyer, and may be their preferred option, but the statement that this is unyielding if the requestor wishes to waive it has no actual basis in fact.

    Here, however, is HI law as it stands right this moment.

    Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-13 : Hawaii Statutes – Section 338-13: Certified copies.

    (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

    You people need to do some real research.

  247. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 9, 2011 at 3:38 am #

    Actually, Danny-boy, things like ‘reasonable suspicion’, ‘probable cause’, ‘assumption’, ‘preponderance of evidence’, ‘circumstantial evidence’ – go quite far in a court of law. None of them may be clear or obvious fact, but all can be considered in the ‘totality of circumstances’.

    Get out of your dorm room and go back to class.

  248. avatar
    Bovril June 9, 2011 at 5:54 am #

    Tut tut Liar in the Sand, your very own words

    There is MOST CERTAINLY clear differences between the terms “Certificate of Live Birth” and a “birth certificate.” Not only are they different words in different word orders, moron, but they have different, even precise meaning, as vital health records

    So you, lie, you’re ignornt, you can’t even remember your own BS and….wait for it,…..you FAIL.

    So, still waiting on that factual rebuttal, child

  249. avatar
    obsolete June 9, 2011 at 6:24 am #

    LineInTheSand, is it your goal to be rude and insulting here so you are banned, and then brag all over Birthistan that you beat us silly obots?

    ‘Cause we’ve seen it all before. So far what you offer is insults, stupidity, and a tiring lack of facts.
    Not impressed.

  250. avatar
    obsolete June 9, 2011 at 6:27 am #

    Bovril: There is MOST CERTAINLY clear differences between the terms “Certificate of Live Birth” and a “birth certificate.” Not only are they different words in different word orders, moron, but they have different, even precise meaning, as vital health records

    Oh, yeah forgot about that one!
    Waiting for his explanation of the difference between a “Driver’s License” and a “License to Drive”.

    I am convinced that the days of even mildly intelligent birthers to debate is over…

  251. avatar
    Scientist June 9, 2011 at 6:55 am #

    LineInTheSand: Actually, Danny-boy, things like reasonable suspicion’, probable cause’, assumption’, preponderance of evidence’, circumstantial evidence’ – go quite far in a court of law. None of them may be clear or obvious fact, but all can be considered in the totality of circumstances’.
    Get out of your dorm room and go back to class.

    The totallity of circumstances is that after 3 years of trying, the birthers haven’t even gotten out of the batters box. Their first taskwould be to come up with a minimally crediible story as to why a pregnant 18 year old would run halfway around the world to a third world country where she knew not a soul in the midst of an independence struggle (while her husband who came from that country stayed in the US completing his 4 year degree in 3 years). Had she gone there to live that might be borderline credible. But she didn’t, as she resided and studied in the US for the following 6 years and then went to a completely different country quite distant from the suppposed birthplace. And then, we are to believe that she concocted some elaborate birth certificate fraud, despite the fact that the law entitled her to bring the child to the US and apply for citizenship upon his arrival here.

    Probable cause, reasonable suspicion, assumptiions require a theory of the case. The birthers don’t have one that passes the laugh test. In fact, if there were no documents at all, one would have to conclude based on common sense alone that the Kenyan birth fairy tale is absurd and more improbable than Martians landing in Times Square in the next 10 minutes.

  252. avatar
    Majority Will June 9, 2011 at 8:09 am #

    LineInTheSand: Wow, stunning in its ignorance of law.

    Please entertain all of us with how you are more qualified in understanding U.S. law than the gentleman pictured here on the left:

    http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2009/01/22/obama-oath-getty-w84398527.jpg

    This should be a laugh riot of deranged and idiotic birther arrogance.

    I’ll make popcorn.

    P.S. Any day now, right? BWAHAHAHAHAHA ! !

  253. avatar
    The Magic M June 9, 2011 at 8:40 am #

    obsolete:
    Waiting for his explanation of the difference between a “Driver’s License” and a “License to Drive”.

    If you had studied Birtherverse, you’d know. ;-)
    And you forgot the “certification” issue, so let’s throw a “driving license” in the mix.

    A “Driver’s License” obviously says you are a Driver, but does not entitle you to drive.
    A “License to Drive” obviously entitles you to drive, but does not make you a driver.
    A “Driving License” obviously is a license that is driving but neither entitles you to drive nor makes you a driver.

    Actually, I am 100% certain that if Obama had released something labeled “Birth Certificate” first, the birthers would have said “it’s not a certificate of live birth, so how can we be sure the baby actually lived, we need confirmation, there’s sooo many inconsistencies!”.

  254. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 9, 2011 at 9:12 am #

    Just so all you super intelligent brainiacs (excepting the obvious twelve-year old morons like Bovril, Obsolete, Daniel, etc.) are keeping up, here’s the latest from the REAL WORLD, as of 8 June.

    After being denied by Hawaii’s State Registrar and Chief Office of Health Status Monitoring, Alvin T Onaka, a May 9, 2011 UIPA request to examine the original, typewritten birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II, Attorney Orly Taitz turned to the The United States District Court, District of Loretta FuddyColumbia and obtained a subpoena for Loretta Fuddy, Director of Hawaii Department of Health, to give a deposition at her office on June 27, 2011.

    The subpoena was issued by Judge Royce Lamberth in case number 11-cv-402, TAITZ V. ASTRUE and said:

    “You are commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects)

    Original 1961 typewritten birth certificate # 10541 for Barack Hussein Obama II, issued 08.08.1961, signed by Dr. David A. Sinclair, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and registrar Lee, stored in the Health Department of the state of HI from 08.08.1961 until now
    Place [of deposition]:

    1250 Punchbowl St., Room 325, Honolulu, HI 96813″

    So, regardless of your techno-babble BS about OCR, Adobe, ‘kerning’, TIFF’ing, and all your other nonsense, we’ll all soon see, by the end of the month, if obama can produce a real, original, no-sh*t, actual 1961 document. I

    If he does, it will be on 1961 paper, using 1961 ink, with 1961 typeface, and have 1961 signatures on it.

    or,

    It won’t be produced, and, and obama and bought-off HI Health Dept. and idiots like you guys will be making more excuses as to why they aren’t in obeyance of a federal supoena (not a smart move).

    I’ll check in with you again soon after June 27. xxxoooo

  255. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 9, 2011 at 9:17 am #

    Oh yeah, ‘Scientist’, ‘Majority Will’ and ‘Magic M’, you’re all idiots too. I didn’t want you guys to feel left out.

  256. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 9, 2011 at 9:26 am #

    And one more thing, obama’s top lawyer, Bob Bauer, jumped the obama ship last week and went back to his ‘private practice’ about one day after the Taitz supoena was issued.

    Interesting timing, that?? Huh???

  257. avatar
    Sef June 9, 2011 at 9:30 am #

    LineInTheSand:
    And one more thing, obama’s top lawyer, Bob Bauer, jumped the obama ship last week and went back to his private practice’ about one day after the Taitz supoena was issued.

    Interesting timing, that??Huh???

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

  258. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 9, 2011 at 9:34 am #

    LineInTheSand: And one more thing, obama’s top lawyer, Bob Bauer, jumped the obama ship last week and went back to his private practice’ about one day after the Taitz supoena was issued. Interesting timing, that?? Huh???

    Jumped the ship to work on Obama’s re-election campaign you mean? Are you always such an idiot?

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56100.html

    White House Counsel Bob Bauer will step down from his post and return to private practice, where he will assist President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, the White House announced Thursday

  259. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 9, 2011 at 9:36 am #

    LineInTheSand: Just so all you super intelligent brainiacs (excepting the obvious twelve-year old morons like Bovril, Obsolete, Daniel, etc.) are keeping up, here’s the latest from the REAL WORLD, as of 8 June. After being denied by Hawaii’s State Registrar and Chief Office of Health Status Monitoring, Alvin T Onaka, a May 9, 2011 UIPA request to examine the original, typewritten birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II, Attorney Orly Taitz turned to the The United States District Court, District of Loretta FuddyColumbia and obtained a subpoena for Loretta Fuddy, Director of Hawaii Department of Health, to give a deposition at her office on June 27, 2011. The subpoena was issued by Judge Royce Lamberth in case number 11-cv-402, TAITZ V. ASTRUE and said: “You are commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects) Original 1961 typewritten birth certificate # 10541 for Barack Hussein Obama II, issued 08.08.1961, signed by Dr. David A. Sinclair, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and registrar Lee, stored in the Health Department of the state of HI from 08.08.1961 until nowPlace [of deposition]: 1250 Punchbowl St., Room 325, Honolulu, HI 96813‘ So, regardless of your techno-babble BS about OCR, Adobe, ‘kerning’, TIFF’ing, and all your other nonsense, we’ll all soon see, by the end of the month, if obama can produce a real, original, no-sh*t, actual 1961 document. IIf he does, it will be on 1961 paper, using 1961 ink, with 1961 typeface, and have 1961 signatures on it. or,It won’t be produced, and, and obama and bought-off HI Health Dept. and idiots like you guys will be making more excuses as to why they aren’t in obeyance of a federal supoena (not a smart move).I’ll check in with you again soon after June 27. xxxoooo

    No the subpoena was not issued by Lambert. You can’t read can you? Taitz submitted the “subpoena” in a court outside the jurisdiction where the “subpoena” is to be served. Its meaningless.

  260. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 9, 2011 at 9:40 am #

    Yeah right ‘Dr.’ Ross (boy, there sure are a lot of ‘doctors’ on this site). You guys prove you can’t fix stupid. Or gullible.

  261. avatar
    Scientist June 9, 2011 at 9:42 am #

    LineInTheSand: I’ll check in with you again soon after June 27. xxxoooo

    Good. Then we will expect not to hear a single word from you for the next 3 weeks.

  262. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 9, 2011 at 9:44 am #

    LineInTheSand: Yeah right ‘Dr.’ Ross (boy, there sure are a lot of doctors’ on this site). You guys prove you can’t fix stupid. Or gullible.

    “Yeah right” is not an intelligent rebuttal. You’re right we can’t fix stupid or gullible, that’s been proven for over 3 years with all the birther trolls who come here showing how stupid and gullible they are. I take it you’ve never seen the film Anchorman that’s where my handle comes from.

  263. avatar
    Scientist June 9, 2011 at 9:46 am #

    Hey Liney: Can you come up wiith a believable story as to WHY Ms Dunham would travel 11,000 miles to have a baby and lie to get him citizenship to which he would have been entitled under law? In 3 years you guys haven’t been able to come up with even the bare bones of a story. That’s really sad.

  264. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 9, 2011 at 9:49 am #

    Say what ‘Dr’. Ross???? Please tell me you’re not that stupid??!! Do you not understand even the most rudimentary facts about federal subpoena’s and discovery??

  265. avatar
    Scientist June 9, 2011 at 9:55 am #

    LineInTheSand: Do you not understand even the most rudimentary facts about federal subpoena’s and discovery??

    What is the theory of your case? Without that you have zip….. No valid subpoena, no case, no motive, nothing..

    Your “case” was DOA from the outset.

  266. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 9, 2011 at 9:56 am #

    LineInTheSand: Say what ‘Dr’. Ross???? Please tell me you’re not that stupid??!! Do you not understand even the most rudimentary facts about federal subpoena’s and discovery??

    That wasn’t a subpoena and it didn’t come from Judge Lambert. A subpoena has to be submitted in the court that the serving is to be done in. Orly submitted it in the DC court which she isn’t even licensed to practice law in. The deposition is to take place in Hawaii. Federal laws say that the subpoena must be submitted to the same court to which the deposition is to take place. Taitz as usual screwed up.

  267. avatar
    Thrifty June 9, 2011 at 10:07 am #

    I see we have a particularly dense and particularly nasty birther troll today. We get too easily wound up by these guys. I guess I can’t begrudge the community here for finding fun in calling Birthers the liars and fools they are. I wonder if it’s productive or necessary. Birthers are harmless. The Birther mythology isn’t an effective mudslinging tool in a Presidential campaign. It’s just people believing nonsense. These lies don’t need to be countered for the sake of the on-the-fence third party, at least not by the likes of us. They certainly can’t be countered to convince the hardcore birthers. So I begin to wonder what’s the use of even addressing Birthers?

  268. avatar
    Greg June 9, 2011 at 10:09 am #

    LineInTheSand: Orly Taitz turned to the The United States District Court, District of Loretta FuddyColumbia and obtained a subpoena for Loretta Fuddy, Director of Hawaii Department of Health, to give a deposition at her office on June 27, 2011.

    A subpoena to attend a deposition. Let’s look at the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 45(a)(2):

    A subpoena must issue as follows:

    (B) for attendance at a deposition, from the court for the district where the deposition is to be taken;

    Where is the deposition going to be taken? “[A]t her office.” That’s a little vague. Let’s review the options:

    1. Loretta Fuddy’s office. That’s in Hawaii. Not the District of Columbia.
    2. Orly Taitz office. That’s in California, not the District of Columbia.

    Please tell me you’re not this stupid??!! Do you not understand even the most rudimentary facts about federal subpoena’s and discovery??

    Oh, wait, there’s another problem. Who can you serve a subpoena on? Rule 45(b)(2):

    Subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii), a subpoena may be served at any place:

    (A) within the district of the issuing court;

    (B) outside that district but within 100 miles of the place specified for the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection;

    (C) within the state of the issuing court if a state statute or court rule allows service at that place of a subpoena issued by a state court of general jurisdiction sitting in the place specified for the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection; or

    (D) that the court authorizes on motion and for good cause, if a federal statute so provides.

    Hawaii is not in DC. It is not within 100 miles of DC. And, Orly has not made a motion to allow service on someone outside DC. So, I ask again:

    Do you not understand even the most rudimentary facts about federal subpoena’s and discovery??

  269. avatar
    JoZeppy June 9, 2011 at 10:13 am #

    LineInTheSand: Just so all you super intelligent brainiacs (excepting the obvious twelve-year old morons like Bovril, Obsolete, Daniel, etc.) are keeping up, here’s the latest from the REAL WORLD, as of 8 June. After being denied by Hawaii’s State Registrar and Chief Office of Health Status Monitoring, Alvin T Onaka, a May 9, 2011 UIPA request to examine the original, typewritten birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama II, Attorney Orly Taitz turned to the The United States District Court, District of Loretta FuddyColumbia and obtained a subpoena for Loretta Fuddy, Director of Hawaii Department of Health, to give a deposition at her office on June 27, 2011. The subpoena was issued by Judge Royce Lamberth in case number 11-cv-402, TAITZ V. ASTRUE and said: “You are commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects) Original 1961 typewritten birth certificate # 10541 for Barack Hussein Obama II, issued 08.08.1961, signed by Dr. David A. Sinclair, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and registrar Lee, stored in the Health Department of the state of HI from 08.08.1961 until nowPlace [of deposition]: 1250 Punchbowl St., Room 325, Honolulu, HI 96813‘ So, regardless of your techno-babble BS about OCR, Adobe, ‘kerning’, TIFF’ing, and all your other nonsense, we’ll all soon see, by the end of the month, if obama can produce a real, original, no-sh*t, actual 1961 document. IIf he does, it will be on 1961 paper, using 1961 ink, with 1961 typeface, and have 1961 signatures on it. or,It won’t be produced, and, and obama and bought-off HI Health Dept. and idiots like you guys will be making more excuses as to why they aren’t in obeyance of a federal supoena (not a smart move).I’ll check in with you again soon after June 27. xxxoooo

    Good God….I’ve suffered your ignorance long enough. The Taitz “subpoena” is invalid for several reasons. It’s not worth the paper its printed on. The State of Hawaii can safely ignore it, and not waste another second. He’s just a quick list of why it is in valid:

    Discovery has not started yet. You cannot take any discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1).

    Orly issued a Dist. DC subpoena for a deposition/production to take place in Hawaii. A subpoena has to be issued under the District Court for where the deposition/production is to take place. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2).

    Orly’s subpoena was not issued by the court. She is not admitted to practice before either the D.D.C. nor D. Hawaii, therfore she cannot sign a subpoena. An attorney can only sign a subpoena when they are admitted to practice in that district where the deposition/production are to occur, or in the court with the underlying matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3).

    Orly’s subpoena is unduly burdensome and can expose her to sanctions, including Hawaii’s attorney fees related to quashing your subpoena. A third party subpoena that requests information that is not relevant to the trial, or reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence is considered unduly burdensome. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1). Orly’s case in DC is over a FOIA request from SSA. Hawaii has nothing to do with social security. Birth certificates are unrelated to request to SSA, because SSA has nothing to do with birth certificates. The subpoena is not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.

    Upon request from Hawaii, the Court is required to quash your subpoena. A court is required to quash a subpoena when the documents requested are privileged or protected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(C)(3)(iii). Hawaii law prohibits the release of birther certificates to people who do not have a direct tangible interest. That means the documents are “otherwise protected.” The subpoena will be quashed.

    Clue for you, acting like a general condescending prick doesn’t trump actually knowing what you are talking about. In your short time here, you’ve shown yourself to be generally an idiot on all subjects vaguely related to the law. Bravado is no substitute for knowledge.

  270. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 9, 2011 at 10:21 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater said,

    ‘That wasn’t a subpoena and it didn’t come from Judge Lambert. A subpoena has to be submitted in the court that the serving is to be done in. Orly submitted it in the DC court which she isn’t even licensed to practice law in. The deposition is to take place in Hawaii. Federal laws say that the subpoena must be submitted to the same court to which the deposition is to take place. Taitz as usual screwed up.’

    Well, ‘Dr.’, everything you’ve said above is wrong and almost too monumentally stupid to reply to, but I’ll try nevertheless.

    First, it’s a legitimate subpoena, you can retrieve it on the net.

    Taitz has been granted ‘discovery’ by Judge Lambert, which works like this –

    “Subpoenas are usually issued by the clerk of the court in the name of the judge presiding over the case.

    Additionally, court rules may permit lawyers to issue subpoenas themselves in their capacity as officers of the court. Typically subpoenas are issued “in blank” and it is the responsibility of the lawyer representing the plaintiff or defendant on whose behalf the testimony is to be given to serve the subpoena on the witness.

    Pro se litigants who represent themselves, unlike lawyers, must ask a court clerk to officially issue them subpoena forms when they need to call witnesses by phone or in person, or when they need to officially request documents to be sent to them and/or directly to court (any documents that have not been subpoenaed to court or verified by a witness can be dismissed by the opposite party as hearsay). ”

    The subpoena has been issued by the authority of United States District Court, District of Columbia (here’s a hint, dummy, federal courts can issue subpoenas across state lines – d,ohhh!!! Keep that a secret just between you and me, ‘Dr’ Ross, lol.).

    Anything else – incredibly erroneous and misinformed – that you wish to opine?

  271. avatar
    obsolete June 9, 2011 at 10:26 am #

    I’ll await FartInTheWind’s profound apology here on June 27th when he realizes that he knew jack-sh*t about the law, the courts, and reality.
    I only hope he will be a big boy and admit his mistake, and not try to claim that the entire Federal Court system was bought off by Obama.
    Get ready for fail on June 27th, FartInTheWind. I hope it feels worse for your than your standard, everyday birther fail.
    Any day now… Any day now…

  272. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 9, 2011 at 10:27 am #

    LineInTheSand: Dr Kenneth Noisewater said, That wasn’t a subpoena and it didn’t come from Judge Lambert. A subpoena has to be submitted in the court that the serving is to be done in. Orly submitted it in the DC court which she isn’t even licensed to practice law in. The deposition is to take place in Hawaii. Federal laws say that the subpoena must be submitted to the same court to which the deposition is to take place. Taitz as usual screwed up.’Well, ‘Dr.’, everything you’ve said above is wrong and almost too monumentally stupid to reply to, but I’ll try nevertheless.First, it’s a legitimate subpoena, you can retrieve it on the net. Taitz has been granted discovery’ by Judge Lambert, which works like this – “Subpoenas are usually issued by the clerk of the court in the name of the judge presiding over the case.Additionally, court rules may permit lawyers to issue subpoenas themselves in their capacity as officers of the court. Typically subpoenas are issued “in blank” and it is the responsibility of the lawyer representing the plaintiff or defendant on whose behalf the testimony is to be given to serve the subpoena on the witness.Pro se litigants who represent themselves, unlike lawyers, must ask a court clerk to officially issue them subpoena forms when they need to call witnesses by phone or in person, or when they need to officially request documents to be sent to them and/or directly to court (any documents that have not been subpoenaed to court or verified by a witness can be dismissed by the opposite party as hearsay). ” The subpoena has been issued by the authority of United States District Court, District of Columbia (here’s a hint, dummy, federal courts can issue subpoenas across state lines – d,ohhh!!! Keep that a secret just between you and me, ‘Dr’ Ross, lol.).Anything else – incredibly erroneous and misinformed – that you wish to opine?

    Wow you must be the biggest [Personal insult redacted. Doc.] on the planet. You can’t get discovery without an actual case. No case has gone to conference and thus the subpoena is invalid. If it was a “valid” subpoena you could link me directly to the docket on the DC court’s website right? How come the only one who posted it is Taitz and the other fringe websites like WND? If it was valid it would appear in the docket listing. Again as shown above the “subpoena” violates the federal guidelines for Subpoenas. Where’s the order directly from the clerk of the court and not from Taitz herself? Your little copy and paste paraphrasing doesn’t show the order came directly from Lambert… It didn’t.

    So again you have an invalid subpoena just like all the invalid paperwork Taitz has filed in the past. You’re so gullible. What makes you think this is somehow valid considering how much Taitz has bungled her paperwork in the past? She had to ask the internet for information on how to file a subpoena. I wouldn’t trust her as a lawyer now would you?

  273. avatar
    obsolete June 9, 2011 at 10:28 am #

    (let’s keep track and remember the date so we can have a group laugh at the latest fail birther).

  274. avatar
    JoZeppy June 9, 2011 at 10:40 am #

    LineInTheSand: Dr Kenneth Noisewater said, That wasn’t a subpoena and it didn’t come from Judge Lambert. A subpoena has to be submitted in the court that the serving is to be done in. Orly submitted it in the DC court which she isn’t even licensed to practice law in. The deposition is to take place in Hawaii. Federal laws say that the subpoena must be submitted to the same court to which the deposition is to take place. Taitz as usual screwed up.’Well, ‘Dr.’, everything you’ve said above is wrong and almost too monumentally stupid to reply to, but I’ll try nevertheless.First, it’s a legitimate subpoena, you can retrieve it on the net. Taitz has been granted discovery’ by Judge Lambert, which works like this – “Subpoenas are usually issued by the clerk of the court in the name of the judge presiding over the case.Additionally, court rules may permit lawyers to issue subpoenas themselves in their capacity as officers of the court. Typically subpoenas are issued “in blank” and it is the responsibility of the lawyer representing the plaintiff or defendant on whose behalf the testimony is to be given to serve the subpoena on the witness.Pro se litigants who represent themselves, unlike lawyers, must ask a court clerk to officially issue them subpoena forms when they need to call witnesses by phone or in person, or when they need to officially request documents to be sent to them and/or directly to court (any documents that have not been subpoenaed to court or verified by a witness can be dismissed by the opposite party as hearsay). ” The subpoena has been issued by the authority of United States District Court, District of Columbia (here’s a hint, dummy, federal courts can issue subpoenas across state lines – d,ohhh!!! Keep that a secret just between you and me, ‘Dr’ Ross, lol.).Anything else – incredibly erroneous and misinformed – that you wish to opine?

    Wow….I don’t think you got a single thing right in that entire post. Thank you again for showing us you don’t have a bloody clue what you are talking about. No, no discovery was granted. No, the Court did not issue the subpoena. No the US District Court for the District of Columbia cannot issue a subpoena for Hawaii. The federal rules allow attorneys to issue subpoena, only if they are admitted to pratice in that court.

    Like I said in my prior post (which even provided you with the citations so perhaps you could look it up and look slightly less of an idiot), bravado, and hurling insults is no replacement for knowing what you are talking about.

  275. avatar
    Greg June 9, 2011 at 10:40 am #

    LineInTheSand: The subpoena has been issued by the authority of United States District Court, District of Columbia (here’s a hint, dummy, federal courts can issue subpoenas across state lines – d,ohhh!!! Keep that a secret just between you and me, ‘Dr’ Ross, lol.).

    Psst. There are these things called rules. Here’s Rule 45. If you want to take a deposition in another state, you have to get a subpoena from a court in that state! If you want to serve someone more than 100 miles from state lines, you have to get court permission!

    You can read the rules yourself if you are able!

  276. avatar
    Suranis June 9, 2011 at 10:42 am #

    LineInTheSand:
    The bald-faced lie is still perpetuated in your article that citizens cannot acquire a certified copy of any vital record they have in HI Health, long or short form.Almost any personal record is fully retrievable –with some exceptions (i.e., criminal or classified files).Anything else is in violation of FOIA, which HI signed up to.

    This is yet another myth that HI Health (and you) continue to create and foster.In protection of whom, or what??

    Its amazing that, despite birthers continual barking of that particular line, not a single hawai’in Birther has managed to get a certified copy if a Long form Birth certificate in the past 10 years. If it was so easy, where are the tons of examples of recently issued LFBCs?

    One, Danae, did manage to get a photocopy after a long period of badgering the HDOH, but she was honest enough to admit it was not an official copy and useless for anything official, and she was honest enough to picture it beside the official Hawai’in Birth certificate she got with it, which looks just like President Obama’s.

    LineInTheSand:
    There is MOST CERTAINLY clear differences between the terms “Certificate of Live Birth” and a “birth certificate.” Not only are they different words in different word orders, moron, but they have different, even precise meaning, as vital health records.I really don’t have time to give everyone here a lesson in health record terminology, so research yourself, particularly looking at what constitutes a Certificate of Live Birth’, a Certification of Live Birth’, and the general terms of birth certificates’ or birth records’ in HI parlance.

    Ok. lets do some reserch. How come Donald Trump has been using a CERTIFICATION OF BIRTH for the past 10 years without a problem? Yes he released it by accident.

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax/files/44/44d19bb5-b4c6-4b57-b059-92dae5f2acd5.jpg

    See at the button where it says the ‘CERTIFICATE TYPE: Birth’ It seems the state of New York thinks that certifications are the same as birth certificates. Who knew?

    And that link goes to the Newsmax site where he was publishing his birther stuff, so you have to know its genuine. So its straight from the Trumpster. So Trump was telling everyone on TV that Certifications were useless for official things.. while sitting in his office was his own Certification of Birth. Which means he knew he was lying.

    And it also proves that certifications of birth are actually valid in at least one state. Which means there is no reason why they would not be valid for them all.

    Hows that for research?

    I’ll be waiting and wearing clean underwear for you to tear my ass a new one.

  277. avatar
    Scientist June 9, 2011 at 10:43 am #

    LineInTheSand: The subpoena has been issued by the authority of United States District Court, District of Columbia (here’s a hint, dummy, federal courts can issue subpoenas across state lines – d,ohhh!!! Keep that a secret just between you and me, ‘Dr’ Ross, lol.).

    I will bet you $100 that Orly will never get inside Hawaii DOH. Since a bet has to have a time limit,, let’s say by election day 2012. If you refuse the bet, then you are just blowing smoke. So, are we on?

  278. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2011 at 10:47 am #

    LineInTheSand: Well, ‘Dr.’ [Noisewater], everything you’ve said above is wrong and almost too monumentally stupid to reply to, but I’ll try nevertheless.

    First, it’s a legitimate subpoena, you can retrieve it on the net.

    Taitz has been granted discovery’ by Judge Lambert, which works like this –

    “Subpoenas are usually issued by the clerk of the court in the name of the judge presiding over the case.

    Additionally, court rules may permit lawyers to issue subpoenas themselves in their capacity as officers of the court. Typically subpoenas are issued “in blank” and it is the responsibility of the lawyer representing the plaintiff or defendant on whose behalf the testimony is to be given to serve the subpoena on the witness

    If you think retrieving something “on the net” means that it is valid, then I would point you to Barack Obama’s birth certificate. ;)

    There’s a lot wrong with your comment. First and foremost the case is not in discovery and won’t be (if it ever is) until sometime after the government’s response (due July 1) is filed.

    The second error is that Taitz is not an attorney, at least not one licensed to practice in DC (where the suit is filed) nor in Hawaii (where the deposition is commanded). Taitz is not an attorney representing a client, but acting pro se on her own behalf.

    Third is that the “subpoena” is not relevant to the question raised by the case.

    This is why the subpoena is not valid.

  279. avatar
    Thrifty June 9, 2011 at 10:48 am #

    I’m kind of an idiot when it comes to legal matters, but that’s okay because I work in the I.T. field. I find this stuff fascinating, if a bit hard to follow.

    What exactly does a court clerk do? Growing up, I always thought of “clerk” as a synonym to “cashier”, so I got very confused to hear clerks taught of in relatively high esteem. You don’t need an education to ring up orders at the grocery store, but these “clerks” sure seemed to. Also I’ve heard it said (this was in the context of TV and movies featuring law firms) characters say stuff like “I clerked for District Court Judge so-and-so” as part of a qualification when discussing their legal careers.

    I guess I could Google it, but those definitions tend to be a little to complex for me to follow, so I’d appreciate a more informal, dumbed down version.

  280. avatar
    Bovril June 9, 2011 at 10:52 am #

    Still waiting child

    Tut tut Liar in the Sand, your very own words

    There is MOST CERTAINLY clear differences between the terms “Certificate of Live Birth” and a “birth certificate.” Not only are they different words in different word orders, moron, but they have different, even precise meaning, as vital health records

    So you, lie, you’re ignorant, you can’t even remember your own BS and….wait for it,…..you FAIL.

    So, still waiting on that factual rebuttal, child

  281. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2011 at 10:53 am #

    LineInTheSand: The subpoena was issued by Judge Royce Lamberth in case number 11-cv-402, TAITZ V. ASTRUE

    Now why would you say that? The subpoena was issued by Orly Taitz, impersonating an officer of the court. Lamberth had nothing to do with it.

    You can get away with junk like that on a birther blog, but not here.

  282. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2011 at 10:55 am #

    Scientist: I will bet you $100 that Orly will never get inside Hawaii DOH.

    You might want to re-word that. The Hawaii DoH is a public building and anybody can get “in.”

  283. avatar
    Bovril June 9, 2011 at 10:56 am #

    Thrifty, IANAL but from the discussions i’ve been a part off with lawyers.

    The Clerk effectively adminsters the operational support elemetns of the court

    “Clerking” is when a (usually) freshly minted lawyer serves effectively a term of work for a judge almost like a short apprenticeship where they learn from the judge as well as do the legwork of reviewing documentation, looking up cites, assisting in writing opinions etc

  284. avatar
    Majority Will June 9, 2011 at 11:05 am #

    LineInTheSand:
    Oh yeah, Scientist’, ‘Majority Will’ and ‘Magic M’, you’re all idiots too.I didn’t want you guys to feel left out.

    You’re the king. Teach us. You might want to put on your safety mittens and loosen the strap on your helmet first.

  285. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2011 at 11:05 am #

    JoZeppy: Clue for you, acting like a general condescending prick doesn’t trump actually knowing what you are talking about. In your short time here, you’ve shown yourself to be generally an idiot on all subjects vaguely related to the law. Bravado is no substitute for knowledge.

    Note that JoZeppy is not calling LineInTheSand a “general condescending prick” (which would be in violation of the rules here) but was only characterizing his commentary that way (which is OK).

  286. avatar
    JoZeppy June 9, 2011 at 11:06 am #

    Thrifty: I’m kind of an idiot when it comes to legal matters, but that’s okay because I work in the I.T. field. I find this stuff fascinating, if a bit hard to follow.What exactly does a court clerk do? Growing up, I always thought of “clerk” as a synonym to “cashier”, so I got very confused to hear clerks taught of in relatively high esteem. You don’t need an education to ring up orders at the grocery store, but these “clerks” sure seemed to. Also I’ve heard it said (this was in the context of TV and movies featuring law firms) characters say stuff like “I clerked for District Court Judge so-and-so” as part of a qualification when discussing their legal careers.I guess I could Google it, but those definitions tend to be a little to complex for me to follow, so I’d appreciate a more informal, dumbed down version.

    there are two kinds of clerks. There are the judge’s clerks, and there is the clerk of the court. Bovril pretty much covered what a judicial clerkship is. Someone just graduated from law school who does most of the work for the judge (usually up to and including writing drafts of the court opinions). Usually only those from better schools with better grades will be able to get a federal clerkship upon graduation (or even sometimes a year or so after being in practice). And depending how good you are, you can get succesive clerkships moving up the chain from District, to Circuit, and if you’re really good and lucky SCOTUS (most firms will give former SCOTUS clerks about a $100k signing bonus). It’s considered good experience because of the amount of in court experience you can get, just observing, and the amount of legal writing you will do (like I said, most judges have their clerks write the majority of their opinions, or at least all but the final drafts).

    The clerk of the court is a regular bureaucrat. I’m pretty sure that one does not even need a JD to be the clerk of the court. The’re the clerk you’re thinking of as at the window. They take in the court filings, make sure they comply with the rules, go to the right judge, etc.

  287. avatar
    JoZeppy June 9, 2011 at 11:08 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Note that JoZeppy is not calling LineInTheSand a “general condescending prick” (which would be in violation of the rules here) but was only characterizing his commentary that way (which is OK).

    I will do my best to walk that line….but good God, s/he’s making it difficult!!!!

  288. avatar
    Majority Will June 9, 2011 at 11:13 am #

    LineInTheSand:
    And one more thing, obama’s top lawyer, Bob Bauer, jumped the obama ship last week and went back to his private practice’ about one day after the Taitz supoena was issued.

    Interesting timing, that??Huh???

    You lie by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception.

    I will let Bob know you wish him all the best as he works on President Obama’s reelection campaign.

    Bauer will return to private practice, where he once again will represent the president’s election team and the Democratic National Committee.

    “Bob was a critical member of the White House team,” Mr. Obama said. “He has exceptional judgment, wisdom and intellect, and he will continue to be one of my close advisers.”

    You are a dishonest, angry troll with a tenuous grasp of reality.

  289. avatar
    Majority Will June 9, 2011 at 11:16 am #

    Was the dishonest, angry troll part too much?

  290. avatar
    Daniel June 9, 2011 at 11:16 am #

    LineInTheSand: Actually, Danny-boy, things like reasonable suspicion’, probable cause’, assumption’, preponderance of evidence’, circumstantial evidence’ – go quite far in a court of law. None of them may be clear or obvious fact, but all can be considered in the totality of circumstances’.

    So you’re attempting to equate “Someone in the DOH office might be a crook, maybe, possibly…” with reasonable suspicion and probable cause?

    ROFLMAO

  291. avatar
    Bovril June 9, 2011 at 11:17 am #

    Don’t forget the private practice Bauer is returning to includes having as a private client, one B. Obama, who is currently……President

  292. avatar
    Scientist June 9, 2011 at 11:22 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You might want to re-word that. The Hawaii DoH is a public building and anybody can get “in.”

    You mean the guards don’t have an order not to let Orly in the building? They would if I were running it…

  293. avatar
    Daniel June 9, 2011 at 11:24 am #

    LineInTheSand: I’ll check in with you again soon after June 27.

    Well as I see it there’s two possibilities for post June 27 comments from this…. person

    1) “Orly was denied her deposition because Lamberth and the other Judges are in on it.”

    2) **cricket sounds**

  294. avatar
    Rickey June 9, 2011 at 11:26 am #

    LineInTheSand:

    Pro se litigants who represent themselves, unlike lawyers, must ask a court clerk to officially issue them subpoena forms when they need to call witnesses by phone or in person, or when they need to officially request documents to be sent to them and/or directly to court

    Amazing. You don’t even realize that you have yourself posted one of the many reasons why Orly’s subpoena is invalid.

    Orly is not admitted to practice in the D.C. court. Consequently, as Doc has pointed out, she is pro se – representing herself – in this case.

    Since she is a pro se litigant, she cannot issue any subpoenas on her own authority. She is not “an officer of the court” in the D.C. court. She has to ask the court clerk to issue any subpoenas which she wishes to serve. She failed to do that, so the subpoena is invalid on its face.

    By the way, since you claim to be a vital records expert, what is the difference between a “Birth Certificate” and a “Certificate of Birth Registration?” The State Department says that I have to submit my Birth Certificate to apply for a passport, but all I have is a Certificate of Birth Registration. Thanks in advance for your help.

  295. avatar
    Suranis June 9, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    JoZeppy: I will do my best to walk that line….but good God, s/he’s making it difficult!!!!

    As we Catholics like to say, ‘love the person, not the sin.’ And yes its bloody hard. :)

  296. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 9, 2011 at 11:47 am #

    Wow, the knowledge flying off of all you ‘armchair lawyers’ is amazing!! I’m learning more stupid, ignorant facts every second!!!

    I learned that a federal subpoena from D.C. can’t be served in Hawaii – that’s absolutely wrong, of course, because in actual fact of real application a fed subpoena can be served anywhere across all 50 states, as long as it is served within 100 miles of the designated deposition site. I guess you have no practical experience with actual federal subpoenas! Wow!!!

    Here’s some other little facts for you…

    On June 1 Chief Judge Royce Lamberth granted a motion in part and denied it in part.

    According to the order attorney Orly Taitz must redact the SS#’s in her (original) complaint and refile it. The order reads: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS

    This court, having considered Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and attached exhibits, It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is GRANTED, in part and DENIED in part.

    Plaintiff’s Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and all attached exhibits shall be removed from the public record and filed under seal. Plaintiff is directed to refile those documents with properly redacted social-security numbers on the public record within 14 days of this date.

    SO ORDERED, this 1st day of June 2011.

    Second order issued by Judge Lamberth is the Scheduling Order…

    Chief judge of the U. S. district court in the District of Columbia, Royce Lamberth, issued his scheduling order on June 1st.

    What is important, that it says, that the FOIA cases are exempt from the initial meet and confer, which means that there is no need for Rule 26 conference, so the discovery is on, which means, that the deposition of the White House Counsel regarding Obama’s fraudulent use of the Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 and his use of the forged birth certificate, can go on.

    The clerks held on to this order and filed the June 1 order by judge Lamberth 2 days later, on June the 3rd.

  297. avatar
    Joey June 9, 2011 at 11:52 am #

    “This is one of several suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”-Memorandum Opinion, Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth, “Taitz v Obama” (Quo Warranto), April 14, 2010

  298. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2011 at 11:53 am #

    LineInTheSand: Wow, the knowledge flying off of all you armchair lawyers’ is amazing!! I’m learning more stupid, ignorant facts every second!!!

    Oh, you didn’t know? Some of the folks swatting you down (myself not included) are licensed attorneys, not “armchair” ones.

  299. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 9, 2011 at 11:56 am #

    Hey Joey, good quote, little dated, perhaps…April 2010?? Check your calendar, it’s June 2011, moron.

  300. avatar
    Thrifty June 9, 2011 at 11:57 am #

    LineInTheSand: Wow, the knowledge flying off of all you armchair lawyers’ is amazing!! I’m learning more stupid, ignorant facts every second!!!

    They’re not armchair lawyers. They’re actual lawyers.

  301. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    LineInTheSand: I guess you have no practical experience with actual federal subpoenas!

    And what is YOUR practical experience with actual federal subpoenas?

    One of the big problems with your posts is that they are assertions not backed up by authority. I would accept that sort of thing from an expert (e.g. an attorney, several of whom post here), but not from someone with unknown qualifications.

  302. avatar
    Thrifty June 9, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    Doc, didn’t you mention rules of conduct for this blog? You’re the boss and know them better than me, but I’ve got to think that LineInTheSand is violating them.

  303. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 9, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    Hey, I do have to correct something, I said a fed subpoena can be served across all 50 states, regardless of ‘district’. I was wrong because obama now says there’s at least 57 states, maybe more. Sorry.

  304. avatar
    LineInTheSand June 9, 2011 at 12:01 pm #

    Hey Thrify, what rules would those be, exactly? Name calling? I guess calling me or others a ‘birther’ from ‘birtheristan’ isn’t that, huh? Please inform me what rule I’m breaking? Maybe it’s being rational??

  305. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2011 at 12:06 pm #

    Thrifty: Doc, didn’t you mention rules of conduct for this blog? You’re the boss and know them better than me, but I’ve got to think that LineInTheSand is violating them.

    I have put LineInTheSand on the moderation list because of one particularly vacuous, but insulting comment made. I really don’t want this to be a school yard brawl, but a discussion site. Any reasonable comment from LITS will be approved.

  306. avatar
    Scientist June 9, 2011 at 12:07 pm #

    Hey, Liney: If it’s a valid subpoena, then the deposition will take place right? So why won’t you take my bet? $100 says Orly gets no deposition with Hawaii DOH by election day 2012. Are you afraid you’re wrong???? Should be easy money for a genius like you…

  307. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    @LineInTheSand

    Basically the rules are what I ever I say, because it’s my website. However, you can get a sense of what’s appropriate from the Visitor’s Guide and the Editorial Policy.

    Someone waltzing in off the street trying to pick a fight, who insults people he doesn’t know, and who acts arrogantly isn’t going far around here.

  308. avatar
    Majority Will June 9, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    LineInTheSand: om birtheristan’ isn’t that, huh? Please inform me what rule I’m breaking? Maybe it’s being rational??

    You’re not a birther? You think you’re being rational? Really? Wow. Amazing.

  309. avatar
    Daniel June 9, 2011 at 12:14 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Any reasonable comment from LITS will be approved.

    So I guess that means crickets until June 27th?

    Sorry, Doc…. but you have to admit that was handed to me on a platter.

  310. avatar
    JoZeppy June 9, 2011 at 12:21 pm #

    LineInTheSand: Wow, the knowledge flying off of all you armchair lawyers’ is amazing!! I’m learning more stupid, ignorant facts every second!!!

    Some of us aren’t arm chair laywers. Some of us are licensed attorneys. Where are you licensed to practice again?

    LineInTheSand: I learned that a federal subpoena from D.C. can’t be served in Hawaii – that’s absolutely wrong, of course, because in actual fact of real application a fed subpoena can be served anywhere across all 50 states, as long as it is served within 100 miles of the designated deposition site. I guess you have no practical experience with actual federal subpoenas! Wow!!!

    So the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are wrong, and you’re right, because you say so? Can you provide some citation to support that? Of course not. Quite simply, you cannot issue a subpoena for a deposition to take place under the US District Court for DC. On top of that, Orly, is not licensed to practice in either District cannot issue a subpoena for either.

    LineInTheSand: Here’s some other little facts for you…
    On June 1 Chief Judge Royce Lamberth granted a motion in part and denied it in part.
    According to the order attorney Orly Taitz must redact the SS#’s in her (original) complaint and refile it. The order reads: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS
    This court, having considered Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and attached exhibits, It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is GRANTED, in part and DENIED in part.
    Plaintiff’s Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and all attached exhibits shall be removed from the public record and filed under seal. Plaintiff is directed to refile those documents with properly redacted social-security numbers on the public record within 14 days of this date.
    SO ORDERED, this 1st day of June 2011.

    And that tells us what exactly besides that Orly is apparently as unfamiliar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as you are?

    LineInTheSand: Second order issued by Judge Lamberth is the Scheduling Order…
    Chief judge of the U. S. district court in the District of Columbia, Royce Lamberth, issued his scheduling order on June 1st.
    What is important, that it says, that the FOIA cases are exempt from the initial meet and confer, which means that there is no need for Rule 26 conference, so the discovery is on, which means, that the deposition of the White House Counsel regarding Obama’s fraudulent use of the Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 and his use of the forged birth certificate, can go on.
    The clerks held on to this order and filed the June 1 order by judge Lamberth 2 days later, on June the 3rd.

    Actually, you do have a point here, but it does nothing to help your argument. There is no Rule 26 conference. But that does not mean discovery is on. Actually, The reason why there is no Rule 26 conference or intial disclosures is closely related to why discovery is not “on” as you put it. There is no Rule 26 conference or intial disclosures in FOIA cases, because there generally is no discovery in FOIA cases. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 185 F. Supp. 2d 54, 65 (D.D.C. 2002) (noting that “[d]iscovery is not favored in lawsuits under the FOIA”). Discovery is rare in a FOIA case and “in the exceptional case in which a court permits discovery in a FOIA action, such discovery should only occur after the government has moved for summary judgment.” Taylor v. Babbitt, No. 03-0173, 2009 WL 4795837 (D.D.C. Dec. 15, 2009).

    But what would I know…afterall, I only went to law school (a real one, unlike Orly) and actually practice law as my day job.

  311. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) June 9, 2011 at 12:24 pm #

    LineInTheSand: Wow, the knowledge flying off of all you armchair lawyers’ is amazing!! I’m learning more stupid, ignorant facts every second!!! I learned that a federal subpoena from D.C. can’t be served in Hawaii – that’s absolutely wrong, of course, because in actual fact of real application a fed subpoena can be served anywhere across all 50 states, as long as it is served within 100 miles of the designated deposition site. I guess you have no practical experience with actual federal subpoenas! Wow!!!Here’s some other little facts for you…On June 1 Chief Judge Royce Lamberth granted a motion in part and denied it in part. According to the order attorney Orly Taitz must redact the SS#’s in her (original) complaint and refile it. The order reads: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS This court, having considered Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and attached exhibits, It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is GRANTED, in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and all attached exhibits shall be removed from the public record and filed under seal. Plaintiff is directed to refile those documents with properly redacted social-security numbers on the public record within 14 days of this date.SO ORDERED, this 1st day of June 2011. Second order issued by Judge Lamberth is the Scheduling Order…Chief judge of the U. S. district court in the District of Columbia, Royce Lamberth, issued his scheduling order on June 1st. What is important, that it says, that the FOIA cases are exempt from the initial meet and confer, which means that there is no need for Rule 26 conference, so the discovery is on, which means, that the deposition of the White House Counsel regarding Obama’s fraudulent use of the Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 and his use of the forged birth certificate, can go on. The clerks held on to this order and filed the June 1 order by judge Lamberth 2 days later, on June the 3rd.

    Funny how you say we’re wrong yet you quote no federal guidelines like Jozeppy did above. You then keep referring to some supposed order but you have yet to link to any docket from the DC court where the order should be listed. You have nothing.

  312. avatar
    Greg June 9, 2011 at 12:31 pm #

    LineInTheSand: Wow, the knowledge flying off of all you armchair lawyers’ is amazing!! I’m learning more stupid, ignorant facts every second!!!
    I learned that a federal subpoena from D.C. can’t be served in Hawaii – that’s absolutely wrong, of course, because in actual fact of real application a fed subpoena can be served anywhere across all 50 states, as long as it is served within 100 miles of the designated deposition site. I guess you have no practical experience with actual federal subpoenas!

    There are rules.

    You can read the rules covering subpoenas yourself.

    No, a federal subpoena from DC cannot compel someone to a deposition in Hawaii. Rule 45(a)(2)(b)

    (2) Issued from Which Court.

    A subpoena must issue as follows:

    (A) for attendance at a hearing or trial, from the court for the district where the hearing or trial is to be held;
    (B) for attendance at a deposition, from the court for the district where the deposition is to be taken; and

    She’s not taking the deposition in DC, is she? (And if she were, apply Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii))

    She has to get a subpoena from the COURT FOR THE DISTRICT WHERE THE DEPOSITION IS TO BE TAKEN!

    It’s written in English. Are you having trouble reading that?

  313. avatar
    Bovril June 9, 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    So Liar in the Sand, apart from still failing to answer the asinine comment you made regarding birth certificates, do tell, precisely WHERE did judge Lamberth state that discovery “was on” in his ruling?

  314. avatar
    Suranis June 9, 2011 at 12:35 pm #

    LineInTheSand:
    Hey, I do have to correct something, I said a fed subpoena can be served across all 50 states, regardless of district’.I was wrong because obama now says there’s at least 57 states, maybe more.Sorry.

    NOW says? He hasn’t said anything like that since 2008, and he only said that once.

    Birthers have been saying similarly ridiculous things, such as “Obama was born in Kenya”, “Reagan lowered taxes,” “you need 2 parents to be an NBC,” and losing every case is “winning” since 2008 and have no sign of stopping. Bomford certificate anyone?

  315. avatar
    Suranis June 9, 2011 at 12:38 pm #

    Line in the sand does sugest an interesting question, however.It begs the question of where exactly does Orly expect the deposition to be taken. Does she expect Alvin Onaka et al to fly all the way to New York to be deposed? If so, what planet is she living on?

  316. avatar
    Daniel June 9, 2011 at 12:44 pm #

    JoZeppy: Some of us are licensed attorneys

    Along with being a licensed attorney, you also probably also win some of your cases.

    That makes you specifically unqualified to comment on an Orly case.

  317. avatar
    Daniel June 9, 2011 at 12:47 pm #

    Suranis: It begs the question

    Sometimes it’s just too easy

  318. avatar
    Thrifty June 9, 2011 at 12:50 pm #

    LineInTheSand: Hey Thrify, what rules would those be, exactly? Name calling? I guess calling me or others a birther’ from birtheristan’ isn’t that, huh? Please inform me what rule I’m breaking? Maybe it’s being rational??

    Every single post of yours is dripping with venom and insults, attempting to provoke. Would you grow the Hell up?

  319. avatar
    gorefan June 9, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    JoZeppy: Some of us are licensed attorneys.

    What will Hawaii DOH do when they get the faux subpoena? My guess is ignore it. Why waste time going to court to quash it.

  320. avatar
    Sef June 9, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Note that JoZeppy is not calling LineInTheSand a “general condescending prick”

    At the very best he’s a private, not a general.

  321. avatar
    Suranis June 9, 2011 at 1:06 pm #

    Daniel: Sometimes it’s just too easy

    Goddamit leave me alone. I’m not a laywer. MOOOM! :((

  322. avatar
    JoZeppy June 9, 2011 at 1:19 pm #

    gorefan: What will Hawaii DOH do when they get the faux subpoena? My guess is ignore it. Why waste time going to court to quash it.

    That is always a tough question. In my practice, we have no shortage of crack pot pro se filings against our clients. We read these filings and half the time we have no bloody clue what these people are saying, or asking for. But we still take everyone of them very seriously. It is clear that Orly did not have the authority to issue the subpoena. However, I do not know many lawyers that feel comfortable leaving something, “unanswered.” There is so much wrong with Orly’s subpoena, that it wouldn’t be difficult to draft a quick motion to quash/motion for protective order (and asking for costs in defending themselves against the subpoena).

  323. avatar
    gorefan June 9, 2011 at 2:00 pm #

    JoZeppy: There is so much wrong with Orly’s subpoena, that it wouldn’t be difficult to draft a quick motion to quash/motion for protective order (and asking for costs in defending themselves against the subpoena).

    Thanks for that answer.

  324. avatar
    Rickey June 9, 2011 at 2:26 pm #

    Suranis:
    Line in the sand does sugest an interesting question, however.It begs the question of where exactly does Orly expect the deposition to be taken. Does she expect Alvin Onaka et al to fly all the way to New York to be deposed? If so, what planet is she living on?

    Wherever the deposition would be held, Orly would have to pay for his travel expenses, including a subsistence allowance if he has to stay overnight.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001821—-000-.html

    Of course, the deposition isn’t going to happen.

  325. avatar
    gorefan June 9, 2011 at 2:29 pm #

    Rickey: Of course, the deposition isn’t going to happen

    I think the faux subpoena said the deposition was to take place at the DOH offices.

  326. avatar
    JoZeppy June 9, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    gorefan: I think the faux subpoena said the deposition was to take place at the DOH offices.

    Which of course, is one more thing that wouldn’t happen without the express agreement of the DOH. You can’t subpoena someone for a depo, and require them to provide the location.

  327. avatar
    gorefan June 9, 2011 at 2:52 pm #

    JoZeppy: You can’t subpoena someone for a depo, and require them to provide the location.

    I wonder (barring an action by a court) if Orly will just show up at the DOH on June 27th. Like, she just showed up for the court case in Louisianna.

    Boy, I hope so.

  328. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2011 at 2:56 pm #

    LineInTheSand:
    Wow, the knowledge flying off of all you armchair lawyers’ is amazing!! I’m learning more stupid, ignorant facts every second!!!…

    Chief judge of the U. S. district court in the District of Columbia, Royce Lamberth, issued his scheduling order on June 1st.

    What is important, that it says, that the FOIA cases are exempt from the initial meet and confer, which means that there is no need for Rule 26 conference, so the discovery is on, which means, that the deposition of the White House Counsel regarding Obama’s fraudulent use of the Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425 and his use of the forged birth certificate, can go on.

    According to the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia:

    The following categories of proceedings are exempted from both initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(E), F.R.Civ.P., and the Rule 26(f) conference, F.R.Civ.P.: … (9) FOIA actions. LCvR 16.3 (b).

    Now the next comment you make on this website will be either (a) an argument with linked authorities supporting a contention that “discovery is on” in Taitz v Azure despite the court rule cited above that there is no initial discovery in FOIA cases or (b) an apology to the community for your arrogance. Any other comment until this condition is met will be deleted.

  329. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 9, 2011 at 3:08 pm #

    gorefan: I wonder (barring an action by a court) if Orly will just show up at the DOH on June 27th. Like, she just showed up for the court case in Louisianan.

    That’s a really interesting question. My initial reaction is that she will. I can see her web site now: “Obama thugs threw me from the building.”

  330. avatar
    gorefan June 9, 2011 at 3:17 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: My initial reaction is that she will.

    I’m hoping for a disturbing the peace arrest. Then she can get discovery. lol

  331. avatar
    Bovril June 9, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    You’ll know she will turn up in Hawai’i when she starts screeching that the Flying Monkeys need to contribute air-miles/money/PayPal etc. She never does anything on her own dime if she can possibly help it.

  332. avatar
    Reality Check June 9, 2011 at 4:21 pm #

    I added the deposition of Director Fuddy on June 27 in Honolulu to the Birther Event Calendar. http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=u2j4kqij7jd36eh45q77s86o0o%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

    I include fiction on the calendar where appropriate. ;)

  333. avatar
    JoZeppy June 9, 2011 at 4:48 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: That’s a really interesting question. My initial reaction is that she will. I can see her web site now: “Obama thugs threw me from the building.”

    I’m guessing if her complaint isn’t dismissed by then, DOH will have counsel waiting for her to break her the news that the subpoena isn’t valid, and if she things otherwise, she can go to the court and file a motion to compel of seek the court find them in contempt.

  334. avatar
    obsolete June 9, 2011 at 7:22 pm #

    I would almost donate $10 to Orly to see her fly to Hawaii for her epic fail……..

  335. avatar
    gorefan June 9, 2011 at 7:59 pm #

    JoZeppy: she can go to the court and file a motion to compel of seek the court find them in contempt.

    Is that the Hawaiian Federal Court or back to the DC court? I have a feeling she doesn’t know in which one she would have to file.

    Is there any advantage for the defense to submit their Motion for a Summary Judgement much before the due date? And wouldn’t she get to respond and then the defense gets to respond.

    And could it be dismissed before then? Like if Judge Lamberth just gets fed up.

    I’m hoping for maximum entertainment value.

  336. avatar
    JoZeppy June 9, 2011 at 9:09 pm #

    gorefan: Is that the Hawaiian Federal Court or back to the DC court? I have a feeling she doesn’t know in which one she would have to file.Is there any advantage for the defense to submit their Motion for a Summary Judgement much before the due date? And wouldn’t she get to respond and then the defense gets to respond.And could it be dismissed before then? Like if Judge Lamberth just gets fed up. I’m hoping for maximum entertainment value.

    Well, therein lies the problem. The proper way to have done it is to issue the subpoena under the Dist. of Hawaii, and you would move to compel/move for contempt in the Dist of Hawaii (you could then move to have it decided by the D.D.C., since they know the facts of the underlyng case). But since the subpoena is issued by DC, you have to move in DC. At this point, it doesn’t really matter, because the subpoena is invalid for so many reasons, does it really matter that her motion to compel/contempt is equally without merit?

    There really is no advantage for the defense to file early, unless they just want to get out of the way. The court will almost certainly give Orly a chance to oppose. But the court is by not necessarily required to wait for an opposition. However, the only time seen a court not wait for an opposition was in denying the motion (note Orly’s motion’s for judgments that were denied immediately). Is it possible that the court would rule before the Defense filed their reply? It is possible. Depends how quickly Judge Lamberth wants it off his docket. Technically, he could dismiss it any day now. It looks like Orly won’t be filing her redacted filings as required by the court. To add to that, she filed a Motion for Clarification, and a Motion for Judgment, both of which appear to not have redacted social security numbers. The court has wide discretion in chosing how to sanction a party that repeatedly refuses to comply with the orders of the court, including dismissal. My guess J. Lamberth will wait for the Motion to Dismiss, so he can give Orly what she wants….a ruling on the merits.

  337. avatar
    gorefan June 9, 2011 at 9:26 pm #

    JoZeppy: At this point, it doesn’t really matter, because the subpoena is invalid for so many reasons, does it really matter that her motion to compel/contempt is equally without merit?

    Thanks again.

    I know it doesn’t matter because it will all be dismissed but then there is the entertainment value.

  338. avatar
    Majority Will June 9, 2011 at 11:15 pm #

    gorefan: Thanks again.

    I know it doesn’t matter because it will all be dismissed but then there is the entertainment value.

    Making it her lifelong mission to tie up our courts with idiotic, nonsensical legal actions is losing its entertainment value.

    She needs to be sanctioned more punitively as well as disbarred. This deranged bigot is an embarrassment to the U.S. and the legal profession.

  339. avatar
    G June 9, 2011 at 11:32 pm #

    Majority Will: Making it her lifelong mission to tie up our courts with idiotic, nonsensical legal actions is losing its entertainment value.

    She needs to be sanctioned more punitively as well as disbarred. This deranged bigot is an embarrassment to the U.S. and the legal profession.

    AGREED !!!

  340. avatar
    GeorgetownJD June 9, 2011 at 11:40 pm #

    … federal courts can issue subpoenas across state lines – d,ohhh!!!

    Uh, no. A district court has jurisdiction within its district. That’s why it’s called a “district” court, get it? Since the court only has enforcement powers over its district, it cannot– and will not — issue any order (and a subpoena is an order) that it cannot enforce.

    The District Court for the District of Columbia has jurisdiction within DC, and ONLY within DC. It lacks the authority to enforce an order in, say, Hawaii. To get an enforceable subpoena for a deposition in Hawaii a litigant must have it issued by the District Court for the District of Hawaii.

    A subpoena must be issued by an officer of the issuing court. That includes judges, the clerk of the court and, where local rules allow, an attorney admitted to practice before that court. Notice I said “where local rules allow.” Some district courts don’t allow subpoenas to be signed by attorneys, e.g., the Southern District of New York; the document must be procured from the clerk of the court.

    Stop practicing law. You’ve committed malpractice about 14 times in a matter of hours.

  341. avatar
    GeorgetownJD June 9, 2011 at 11:59 pm #

    “What is important, that it says, that the FOIA cases are exempt from the initial meet and confer, which means that there is no need for Rule 26 conference, so the discovery is on, …”

    Uh, no. Here is Judge Lamberth’s scheduling order:

    “FOIA actions are exempt from Local Civil Rule 16.3′s requirement to meet and confer, as well as the requirement for initial disclosures.

    Any dispositive motions that defendant expects to file shall be filed within thirty (30) days of this date.”

    So let’s take a look at Local Civil Rule 16.3, so see what, exactly, is the meet and confer that FOIA actions are exempt from:

    “DUTY TO CONFER

    (a) TIME FOR CONFERENCE.

    Counsel (including any nonprisoner pro se party) must confer in accordance with this
    Rule and Rule 26(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, within 21 days before a
    scheduling conference is held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b), F.R.Civ.P.
    to:

    (1) Discuss the matters set forth in Rule 16.3(c).”

    Okay, FOIA actions are exempt from meet and confers to “discuss the matter set forth in Rule 16.3(c), so let’s have a look at that section of Rule 16.3:

    “(c) MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED BY THE PARTIES.

    At the conference required by this Rule, the parties must confer to discuss the
    following matters:

    (1) Whether the case is likely to be disposed of by dispositive motion ”

    IOW, in a FOIA suit the defendant does not have to meet and confer with the plaintiff BEFORE FILING A DISPOSITIVE MOTION.

  342. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 10, 2011 at 8:24 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: IOW, in a FOIA suit the defendant does not have to meet and confer with the plaintiff BEFORE FILING A DISPOSITIVE MOTION.

    I think the more cogent objection is that the local rules say that FOIA cases are exempt from initial discovery.

  343. avatar
    BirthersRDum June 12, 2011 at 8:04 am #

    Can you also put another issue to bed? Some birthers are now claiming that the roughly 200 identical pixel matches in this .PDF are proof of some skulduggery. Since most are in the typeset text of the document, it would seem that the regularity of the type would lend itself to identical matches. One has pointed out that in some cases the pixel matches remain even though two adjacent letters that match two other adjacent letters do so despite the fact that one of the four letters is mis-registered by one pixel in the vertical dimension. How would the typesetter have been able to set that letter exactly 85 microns off in the vertical direction so that it would scan identically to its pair that is correctly registered?

    I think you have done a fantastic job debunking all of the lies here, can you nail this one? for us?