Main Menu

Did Douglas Vogt commit perjury?

One of the frustrating aspects of this Obama conspiracy business is that birthers can say what I consider to be irresponsible things, and get by without any consequences.  Birther lawsuits are generally dismissed and the self-appointed birther subject matter experts never appear under oath. Even Dr. Ron Polland’s affidavit that Orly filed in California was signed “XXXXXXXXXXXX.” Birthers willing to use their real names just write reports for publication at WorldNetDaily.

That changed on on January 26 with the testimony of Douglas Vogt and Felicito Papa in the Farrar v. Obama hearing in Atlanta. I was at the hearing and I heard some things didn’t sound true. Did I hear right? Does it depend on what the definition of “is” is?  Let’s look at the transcript. Mr. Vogt’s testimony begins on page 21.

Orly Taitz asked Vogt if he found anything suspicious about the birth certificate Mr. Obama posted online. Taitz kept interrupting, but let me pick out some bits of what he said. First he mentioned haloing, a bit of white surrounding text on the form. Vogt said:

Yes, the haloing we’re referring to is around all the type and lines, there’s a white line. At first, we didn’t quite know what it was until we finally actually replicated the form and actually redid the thing and figured out how the forger did it.

The haloing is caused by what — it’s a subroutine in Photoshop called unsharp mask. Now you have to understand, if a document like this has any evidence of  computer manipulation, it’s a fraud.

I think a reasonable person would see Vogt as expressing an opinion (that there was a forger, that Photoshop was used, that a document couldn’t be enhanced, for example, without being a fraud), even though he doesn’t use that word. While what he said is false, he could just be mistaken.

 

Vogt then repeats something he said before, but was not borne out by citations he made:

They had these original forms. There was a federal law that was passed in 2005 that required them to scan all the documents

This is a statement of fact, and if not true, might rightly be called lie.

Orly Taitz kept saying “stamp, stamp, stamp” in an attempt to make the point that if a hand stamp were applied to three documents, the stamps wouldn’t appear in the same place on all the documents. However, she never gave any reason to believe that there were three documents (as opposed to three pictures of the same one). Taitz then went on to address the certification stamp, suggesting that a normal hand stamp would be slanted to some degree. She asked Vogt: “Was it slanted here?” and Vogt replied, “No, they’re perfectly straight.”

Vogt considers himself to be an expert and represents that he looked at the document carefully. How could he give that answer truthfully, when the stamp is not “perfectly” straight.

Taitz asked: “The question is would you expect kerning or encroachment of one letter going into space of the other letter on a typewritten document?” Vogt replied:

No. Typewriters basically are either 12 characters to an inch and they all fit in a  specific box six points wide.

But that’s not actually true because typewriters are mechanical devices subject to maladjustment and wear. I did experiments myself to verify that characters can stray outside those imaginary boxes with a typewriter. However, we might excuse Mr. Vogt for not knowing this since he’s never claimed to be a typewriter expert but a typesetting expert (where a typewriter font wouldn’t normally overlap).

Now we get to my personal area of expertise. Orly Taitz asked: “What about, did you check — can we go a little bit higher — in terms of their number. The number ends with 641. Did you check the numbers, was that sequential?” Vogt replied:

No, it was hard finding the law, but both the — there was a Model States Vital Statistics Act and in the U.S. Department of Health and Education as well as the Social Security system that both say in the federal regs that all birth certificate numbers have to be sequential and they start from zero or one, January 1 at 12:01 a.m.”

The National Center for Health Statistics publishes a Model States Vital Statistics Act, but it is not a law or a federal regulation as Vogt claims. It is exactly what it says, a model act that a state may or may not adopt in whole or in part. I’ve read, I believe, all the Vital Statistics statutes in Hawaii and have not seen such a requirement there.

Orly Taitz never made any sense from what she tried to elicit from Mr. Vogt about the numbers, but got to it later in the testimony of former INS agent Sampson. The gist of the argument is that Obama’s birth certificate is a fake because its certificate number is not in strict birth order agreement with the Nordyke twins born the next day. But then the Nordyke twins aren’t in order with an unnamed certificated WorldNetDaily published, nor with that of Virginia Sunahara.

It is generally true that birth certificates are numbered 1, 2, 3 … starting at the beginning of each year, but to describe them as sequential doesn’t mean that that the children who get them are born in that order, else how could a late registrant get a number that wasn’t already used? Birth certificates are sequentially numbered IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY RECEIVE NUMBERS and different states number certificates (sequentially) with differing procedures. In 1961 in Hawaii, they are sequentially numbered in the order in which they were fed into the numbering machine.

While the case could be made that Douglas Vogt lied under oath, I think the more reasonable conclusion is that he believes his own nonsense — and that’s not perjury.

Print Friendly

, ,

112 Responses to Did Douglas Vogt commit perjury?

  1. avatar
    John February 2, 2012 at 10:46 pm #

    They might have been great arguments Doc if Obama had showed up. But, nothing in the record refutes Doug Vogt and the evidence was unrefuted by Obama himself (Obama never showed up and never produced any evidence to counter Vogt’s allegations and claims.) It will be quite easy for Georgia to make a ruling that Obama’s BC is a forgery simply because there is no evidence to such that it is not. The court can simply rule that there is substancial compentent evidence to raise credible doubt in the validity of Obama’s BC and that such a document cannot be relied upon to establish Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 2, 2012 at 10:47 pm #

    If you haven’t seen it, you might look out for Doug Vogt’s Mega Neutron Bomb video. There’s a copy at the Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012 web site where the proprietor took a pot shot at yours truly:

    When I read “Dr. Conspiracy’s” amateur mouthings of his handlers’ words, they are pathetic compared to the authority of a Doug Vogt or Paul Irey.

    Confirmation bias anyone?

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 2, 2012 at 10:54 pm #

    You and I who are familiar with this stuff probably understand what Vogt was saying but Judge Malihi isn’t going to make heads or tails out of halos and “stamp, stamp, stamp.”

    But you hit on an important point, all Orly’s case does is raise “doubts” about documents. She presented nothing that argues Obama was born outside the United States and there’s nothing in the Constitution about US Presidents needing social security numbers.

    I’m not going to claim that I know what Malihi is going to do, but I am certain that it’s not a slam dunk for the birthers.

    John: They might have been great arguments Doc if Obama had showed up. But, nothing in the record refutes Doug Vogt

  4. avatar
    John February 2, 2012 at 11:04 pm #

    “But you hit on an important point, all Orly’s case does is raise “doubts” about documents. ”

    Yes, that’s very true and to whit Obama cannot establish on the record his birth on US Soil because the BC is suspect. So Obama can’t prove he was born on US Soil and Orly can’t prove he was born outside the United States. Only one conclusion can be derived, that Obama’s birth on US Soil is inconclusive. Obama has failed to meet the qualifications of the POTUS irregardless of the NBC argument.

  5. avatar
    John February 2, 2012 at 11:13 pm #

    Orly’s argument about the SSN goes along with the evidence that Obama has had multiple names or aliases and therefore he can’t establish that his name “Barack Obama” is his legal and lawful name to be placed on the Georgia Ballot. Suspect SSN and no evidence of Name Change…fail for Obama.

  6. avatar
    Rickey February 2, 2012 at 11:45 pm #

    John:
    They might have been great arguments Doc if Obama had showed up.But, nothing in the record refutes Doug Vogt and the evidence was unrefuted by Obama himself (Obama never showed up and never produced any evidence to counter Vogt’s allegations and claims.)It will be quite easy for Georgia to make a ruling that Obama’s BC is a forgery simply because there is no evidence to such that it is not.The court can simply rule that there is substancial compentent evidence to raise credible doubt in the validity of Obama’s BC and that such a document cannot be relied upon to establish Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

    You forget that the other two attorneys conceded that Obama was born in Hawaii and even entered a copy of the Hawaii birth certificate into evidence.

  7. avatar
    misha February 2, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

    John: It will be quite easy for Georgia to make a ruling that Obama’s BC is a forgery simply because there is no evidence to such that it is not.

    This proves my point that birthers at their core, are fascists.

    The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. Birthers contend the opposite.

  8. avatar
    Tomtech February 3, 2012 at 12:12 am #

    John, John, John.

    The hearing wasn’t a criminal case. The standard was the same as civil cases, “a preponderance of the evidence.

    The only evidence that could be confirmed in Orly’s case came from Jackson’s affidavit and relates to Obama’s COLB and LFBC and the fact that officials in the state of Hawai’i published on their official websites that the documents published by Obama, and entered as exhibits by Orly, were true copies of the actual documents.

    The only way the SSN information would be considered as evidence would be for the creator of the database, or another representative of the company which compiled the date, to testify on the validity of it.

    If Vogt lied under oath, he could be convicted of perjury. You can’t lie under oath even when there is no one there to object to your lies.

  9. avatar
    Tomtech February 3, 2012 at 12:17 am #

    Rickey: You forget that the other two attorneys conceded that Obama was born in Hawaii and even entered a copy of the Hawaii birth certificate into evidence.

    Orly entered both certificates into the record as part of her 208 pages of exhibits. Jackson’s affidavit, which Orly entered into the record, actually brought out the fact that multiple Hawai’ian officials used official state websites to confirm the accuracy of the publicly available pdf files.

  10. avatar
    y_p_w February 3, 2012 at 12:33 am #

    Speaking of numbering sequences

    It’s been a while, but I remember when I did BASIC programming. Everything is done sequentially with a number before every operation line. Typically the lines would be assigned like this:

    10
    20
    30
    40
    50

    What this allowed one to do was maybe throw in additional lines in the sequence:

    10
    20
    25
    30
    40
    45
    50

    I remember using a specialized computer in HS that had a feature where the user could reconfigure the lines so the header numbers were spaced 10 apart, with automatic renumbering of GOTO statements. Those who used BASIC know what that means.

    Of course this wouldn’t necessarily be that great an idea with birth certificates. There are always delayed filings. They want those to be strictly sequential without gaps if possible.

  11. avatar
    JPotter February 3, 2012 at 12:46 am #

    John: nothing in the record refutes Doug Vogt

    No, and nothing needs to, as nonsense need not be refuted.

    Saying 2 + 2 = 5 in court doesn’t make it any truer than saying it on the sidewalk does, whether anyone bothers to object or present contradictory testimony.

    The points Vogt presented—except for the “haloing”—were obviously fallacious, even to a laymen (IMO). And he explanation of the “haloing”, a simple statement of opinion, offering his theory w/o any demonstration, carries no weight. Even if his explanation is accepted, he presents no reason to believe the information in the image was altered. And there’s always the ultimate fail of PDF Madness …. it’s just a picture on the interwebs.

    And I can’t help but rant about how wrong Vogt is. There are several ways to produce a white halo around elements of a given color, but simple use of the Unsharp Mask filter isn’t one. That filer alone would only produce a halo it it was applied to the background as well as the elements to be halo’d. Result: a crispy, burnt background, like this. If the elements in question are isolated (with either a selection or by being copied onto another layer), and then sharpened, no halo is produced, as the filter doesn’t affect transparency. The only way Unsharp can mimic what’s seen in the WH PDF is to select a color range of blacks, then expand and feather the selection, then apply the unsharp mask … and you get something link this. A pixelated halo.

    Going over the transcript, I am confident the bumbling display of ill-preparedness impressed Malihi not a bit. The Coen brothers couldn’t write this dialogue!

  12. avatar
    BillTheCat February 3, 2012 at 12:51 am #

    Poor John. If nothing else in his declaration of the usual “birther facts”, the SSN “issue” has been thoroughly refuted again and again.

  13. avatar
    John Reilly February 3, 2012 at 12:59 am #

    This is Mission Impossible 7, the attempt by the birthers to get Georgia to throw the President off the ballot, which forces Gingrich (or MacPherson, or whatever his name is) and Mitt (or Willard) to take a position, which makes the whole Republican Party look racist. And now that The Donald is back, if I were Obama I would say that I’ll show you my genuine birth certificate when you show me your genuine hair.

    To my unlegal mind, perjury requires you to say a fact which is material to be true when you know it to be false. Despite Dr. Taitz’s blog, I believe perjury is prosecuted in this country only slightly more often than treason. When prosecuted, it is the mortgage fraud variety, saying you made $50,000 last year when your W2 says $32500.

    Since Mr. Vogt sincereky believes the nonsense he spews, I don’t see perjury.

    Another full day spent with attorneys has warped my world view.

  14. avatar
    John Reilly February 3, 2012 at 1:03 am #

    For our friend John’s benefit, the State of Georgia, which had a Governor who ran under a name not his (that would by Jimmy Carter, John), does not require one to have or provide his social security number in order to run for President.

  15. avatar
    Daniel February 3, 2012 at 1:18 am #

    John:
    Suspect SSN and no evidence of Name Change…fail for Obama.

    And yet he’s still President, and his name is still on the ballot in Georgia, the one that’s already been printed up.

    I’m sorry, who was it that was fail again?

  16. avatar
    John Woodman February 3, 2012 at 1:48 am #

    I have spoken personally with Doug Vogt. He certainly comes across in person as someone who believes what he’s saying.

  17. avatar
    Rickey February 3, 2012 at 2:47 am #

    John:
    no evidence of Name Change

    Hey, for once John is correct about something!

    You’re absolutely right, there is no evidence that he ever changed his name from Barack Obama to anything else.

  18. avatar
    Adrien Nash February 3, 2012 at 5:13 am #

    The Vogt analysis must be consumed with a heaping tablespoon of trust, trust in his experience, competence and intelligence. But the claims that he makes are essentially things that you have to take his word on, or not. It’s not things that are self-evident and explanations that mostly state the obvious. I always felt that there must be a true Photoshop author or expert user out there who would weigh in on the BC, but none has bothered to come forward to support or refute either sides claims, -authentic scan? or digital fake?
    But I did my own analysis and discovered things completely overlooked by others, -things that no one has yet refuted (nor confirmed either) nor even acknowledged (I’m not a kool-aid drinking member of the club) I found explanations for the 5 added layers and found all of them involved human manipulation and nothing resulting from the scan of an actual paper document. I concluded that no paper document actually exists.
    To see my large-size JPG graphic expose, go to http://photobucket.com/obama_bc It’s all the bottom of the page, and more are on the additional pages.

    “officials in the state of Hawai’i published on their official websites that the documents published by Obama, and entered as exhibits by Orly, were true copies of the actual documents.”
    This statement misstates the facts. No one from Hawaii has gone on the record before any trier of fact, nor signed any notarized affidavit confirming anything about the BC digital image. They haven’t claimed that it was issued by the state of Hawaii because they don’t issue digital files, only paper documents, but the White House has never presented any paper document to any one with the knowledge and background to know if it is genuine.

    Also what’s wrong with that statement was the use of the term “true copy”. Hawaii ceased providing “TRUE COPY” replications years ago and now only provides “ABSTRACT” representations of the birth original. It can’t be certified as being a true copy of anything because it doesn’t represent a true copy of anything. It’s an abstract imitation, and therefore doesn’t serve as an authentic true copy of an original bc.

    But aside from the issue of forgery, the BC is irrelevant since it’s unrelated to the issue of presidential eligibility. Natural citizenship is not dependent upon place of birth. Just consider John McCain who is a natural born citizen. For a full understanding of the truth about natural citizenship, read the essay I spent the whole afternoon penning and polishing. It’s on my blog here: http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/a-natural-american/ It’s titled: WHO IS A NATURAL AMERICAN and WHO IS NOT? (who can be President and who can not?) It explains everything and blows away much of the unnecessary legal fog on what a natural born citizen is. I expect it’s my final word on the subject since I’ve now examined and explained it from every conceivable angle.

  19. avatar
    Bob February 3, 2012 at 5:16 am #

    John Woodman: I have spoken personally with Doug Vogt. He certainly comes across in person as someone who believes what he’s saying.

    That’s the saddest thing I’ve read in a while.

  20. avatar
    Nathanael February 3, 2012 at 6:58 am #

    John: So Obama can’t prove he was born on US Soil and Orly can’t prove he was born outside the United States.

    In which case the tiebreaker goes to the State of Hawaii. Game, set match: Obama.

  21. avatar
    Nathanael February 3, 2012 at 7:04 am #

    John: It will be quite easy for Georgia to make a ruling that Obama’s BC is a forgery simply because there is no evidence to such that it is not.

    No evidence is necessary. The judge has everything he needs to refute Taitz’s “evidence”; to wit: a brain.

    A challenge, John: if you’re so certain that the judge must take everything Taitz entered into the record as unadulterated truth, then it ought to be a piece of cake for you to cite the statute that says so.

    Come on, John. Do it: Give us a cite, or it didn’t happen. I double dare ya.

  22. avatar
    Nathanael February 3, 2012 at 7:13 am #

    John:
    Suspect SSN and no evidence of Name Change…fail for Obama.

    Orly has absolutely zero evidence that Barack Obama has ever used any but the one SSN — the same one she plastered all over the Internet. Prove that Obama has ever used any other than the one number, then we’ll talk about fraud.

    Evidence of name change? You’re absolutely correct. There is no evidence that Obama has ever changed his named.

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 7:24 am #

    What a ridiculous comment!

    If he says the stamp is perfectly straight, one doesn’t have to take his word on it; one can lay a grid over the stamp and look at it. One doesn’t have to take his word that if one simply scans a document one doesn’t get layers; one can read the Adobe manual section on adaptive optimization, or just scan a document and see the layers.

    No, one doesn’t have to close their eyes and ears and and put their reason on hold, letting cranks like Douglas Vogt lead them around by the nose.

    Adrien Nash: The Vogt analysis must be consumed with a heaping tablespoon of trust, trust in his experience, competence and intelligence. But the claims that he makes are essentially things that you have to take his word on, or not.

  24. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 7:32 am #

    Perjury is not simply the act of saying something under oath that is untrue; perjury requiires the willful knowledge that it is untrue. And the simple fact about Vogt is that he lacks the expertise to know whether what he said is true or untrue. Which begs the question of why Circusmaster (sorry, Judge) Malihi allowed his testimony as a supposed “expert” witness.

  25. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 7:35 am #

    Adrien Nash: I expect it’s my final word on the subject since I’ve now examined and explained it from every conceivable angle.

    With all due respect, who cares? Why does your opinion matter?

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 7:47 am #

    My understanding is that an administrative hearing like this allows testimony that would not be admissible in a regular court. And of course, there is no jury to unduly influence. Judge Malihi can weigh the credentials and the credibility of the witnesses himself.

    Remember, this was a abbreviated hearing so that the birthers could get their stuff into the record. Judge Malihi gave Orly 2 hours, and shut her down after 1.

    Scientist: Which begs the question of why Circusmaster (sorry, Judge) Malihi allowed his testimony as a supposed “expert” witness.

  27. avatar
    Keith February 3, 2012 at 8:04 am #

    John: It will be quite easy for Georgia to make a ruling that Obama’s BC is a forgery simply because there is no evidence to such that it is not.

    No. That is not how things work in the USA. There is no evidence that your drivers license is not a fake, should the cop that pulls you over next time throw your forging behind in jail?

    What is it exactly that you have against the Constitution of the United States that makes you want to tear it apart like that?

  28. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 8:07 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: My understanding is that an administrative hearing like this allows testimony that would not be admissible in a regular court. And of course, there is no jury to unduly influence. Judge Malihi can weigh the credentials and the credibility of the witnesses himself.

    It gives the judge the discretion to allow testimony that would not be admissible in a regular court. I don’t think it COMPELS the judge to allow a copier saleman to testify as a document expert or to permit plaintiff’s counsel to swear herself in and testify.

    Illinois managed to handle this matter without creating a circus. They got the birth certificate into evidence in some form or other and made theiir ruling. I think you are cutting Malihi and Georgia more slack than they are due.

  29. avatar
    Keith February 3, 2012 at 8:14 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You and I who are familiar with this stuff probably understand what Vogt was saying but Judge Malihi isn’t going to make heads or tails out of halos and “stamp, stamp, stamp.”

    I wouldn’t be so sure about that, Doc. I did some analysis work for a State Court System that was being converted (or at least the Government’s central IT department wanted it converted – Justice was kicking back). The Judges I talked to were very cluey about their systems capability and had very pointed questions about printer compatibility and image storage systems. Just as they were not in the habit of suffering fools in their courtroom, neither were they likely to suffer fools in the support services planning committees. As an outsider, a contractor, I happened to notice this appalling lack of kowtowing to the boffins well before the permanent State Employees did, and by simply treating people as humans and not monkeys, I had my part of the system ready to go before the other folks had gotten to first base.

  30. avatar
    Reality Check February 3, 2012 at 8:41 am #

    All you ever needed to know about Doug Vogt’s creditability or 12,068 reasons Doug Vogt is a complete kook:
    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20001007&slug=4046570

    Adrien Nash: The Vogt analysis must be consumed with a heaping tablespoon of trust, trust in his experience, competence and intelligence.

  31. avatar
    Keith February 3, 2012 at 8:41 am #

    Adrien Nash: This statement misstates the facts. No one from Hawaii has gone on the record before any trier of fact, nor signed any notarized affidavit confirming anything about the BC digital image. They haven’t claimed that it was issued by the state of Hawaii because they don’t issue digital files, only paper documents, but the White House has never presented any paper document to any one with the knowledge and background to know if it is genuine.

    Your statement not only misstates the facts, it misrepresents the issues.

    First, you misstate a fact: a State Official has stated, under oath, that the document published by the Obama Campaign in 2008 (I think) was the official birth certificate.

    Second, you misrepresent the issue: the image that is published in not the birth certificate, it is an image of the birth certificate. The images consist of flat scans and not flat photographs, none of which are the birth certificate, but images of the birth certificate.

    What the State Officials are confirming is not that the image itself is a birth certificate, because that is absurd. They have repeated confirmed, at least once under oath, that the information on the birth certificate is accurate, the images are accurate images of that birth certificate, and therefore the information on the images is accurate.

    Also what’s wrong with that statement was the use of the term “true copy”. Hawaii ceased providing “TRUE COPY” replications years ago and now only provides “ABSTRACT” representations of the birth original. It can’t be certified as being a true copy of anything because it doesn’t represent a true copy of anything. It’s an abstract imitation, and therefore doesn’t serve as an authentic true copy of an original bc.

    This statement not only misrepresents the issue, but is intellectually dishonest into the bargain. You misrepresent the issue when you claim the only a “true copy” can be certified, and you are being intellectually dishonest when you ignore the fact that the certification even states that the information that it is certifying might be an abstract of the full set of data in the State records.

    The statement on the document does not say “true copy”. It says “true copy or abstract”. It turns out that the Hawai’ian standard form birth certificate that was published in 2008 is a “true abstract”; the Hawai’ian non-standard birth certificate that was published in 2011 is a “true copy”. That makes both of them a “true copy or abstract”.

  32. avatar
    Keith February 3, 2012 at 8:47 am #

    Scientist: Illinois managed to handle this matter without creating a circus. They got the birth certificate into evidence in some form or other and made theiir ruling. I think you are cutting Malihi and Georgia more slack than they are due.

    On the other hand, Georgia got the BC into evidence too. There is no reason to believe that the end result in Georgia will be any different than that in Illinois.

    The only difference is that Georgia law allows for a public hearing before a sworn Judge, and Illinois, apparently does neither.

  33. avatar
    hermitian February 3, 2012 at 9:09 am #

    Certified copies of the standard form Certificate of Live Birth may not be produced by computer printout according to the HDOH Chapter 8B regulations which have not been revised since June 29, 1976. Only abbreviated certified certificates may be produced by computer printout and only if the original standard certificate exists and if the information on the abbreviated certificate is taken verbatim from the original standard certificate. Certified copies of standard certificates may be produced only by photocopy, dry copy reproduction process, or by typing. Consequently if any image of a standard certificate indicates modification, manipulation or printing by a computer then that image is necessarily a forgery.

  34. avatar
    hermitian February 3, 2012 at 9:29 am #

    The Sunahara v. Fuddy case is particularly egregious because by restricting the issuance of certified copies to only abbreviated certificates the right of Duncan Sunahara to access, inspect, and personally copy his sister’s original standard Certificate of Live birth has been abridged. Moreover his right to do same on any other subsequent official copies of his sister’s original certificate in the HDOH’s chain of custody of her vital statistics has also been abridged. The right to inspect is guaranteed under SS338-18. Abbreviated certificates cannot be inspected because they generally don’t even exist until a request for certified copy is made. Moreover, only the Local Registrar may retain duplicate copies of abbreviated certificates but only for administrative purposes. The Local registrar may not allow anyone outside his office to inspect duplicate copies and he may not divulge any information from the duplicate copies to anyone outside his office. Consequently the right to inspect under SS338-18 cannot include abbreviated copies. Thus if only certified copies of abbreviated certificates are provided then the citizen’s fundamental right to inspect his or her on personal records has been illegally abridged. Under SS338-18 that right also extends to Duncan Sunahara.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 9:34 am #

    No, it only means that it is not a certified copy. “Forgery” is your word, not what is in the regulation.

    However, HDOH Chapter 8B is replaced by HRS §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]

    which is not in agreement with your claim.

    hermitian: Consequently if any image of a standard certificate indicates modification, manipulation or printing by a computer then that image is necessarily a forgery.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 9:37 am #

    He can get a copy, just not a certified copy. The statute doesn’t create any right to “personally copy” the certificate.

    hermitian: The Sunahara v. Fuddy case is particularly egregious because by restricting the issuance of certified copies to only abbreviated certificates the right of Duncan Sunahara to access, inspect, and personally copy his sister’s original standard Certificate of Live birth has been abridged

  37. avatar
    justlw February 3, 2012 at 10:03 am #

    Reality Check:
    All you ever needed to know about Doug Vogt’s creditability or 12,068 reasons Doug Vogt is a complete kook:
    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20001007&slug=4046570

    OK, now this is just spooky. Take Obama’s SSN:

    042-68-4425

    Now, look at the end of the article, where the reporter gives her message phone number:

    206-464-2248

    Do you see it? Every one of the digits in both numbers is taken from 12068! Except for 4 and 5!

    I’m freaking out, man.

  38. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny February 3, 2012 at 10:13 am #

    Scientist: llinois managed to handle this matter without creating a circus. They got the birth certificate into evidence in some form or other and made theiir ruling.

    ER, no. If you look carefully, you will see that the lawyer for Obama (Kerloff I think) also added a complete printout of Ankeny vs Indiana in the Appeals Court of Indiana (which is exactly what I advised Jablonski to do, remember?).

    The point is that in Illinois, there was no Orly or any other WND lawyer. There was one challenge against Obama on the validity of his signatures and two on his eligibility under, yes you guessed it, Minor vs Happersett (Michael Jackson even included the Donofrio amicus brief treatise filed in Georgia). The last two were covered by the same attorney and the same approach. Meroni and Boulton withdrew their challenge during the verification stage of Obama’s signatures when it became clear Obama would have enough signatures at the end of verification.

    So there was no circus in Illinois. Michael Jackson complains that he did not even get to open his mouth at the hearing. No circus YET. Boulton has since hinted that he will change track and go for the “constitutional issue”. Since he is too late for a new proper challenge, he will probably appeal Freeman or Jackson (there has been speculation that he is also behind one of those). I would not be surprised if he were to then invite “experts” to prove that the birth certificate Kerloff scanned is a fake.

    So, we may still have a circus in Illinois as well. Boulton has enough time now, since his own (Republican) candidature did not survive the signature verification stage.

  39. avatar
    Keith February 3, 2012 at 10:18 am #

    hermitian:
    Certified copies of the standard form Certificate of Live Birth may not be produced by computer printout according to the HDOH Chapter 8B regulations which have not been revised since June 29, 1976.Only abbreviated certified certificates may be produced by computer printout and only if the original standard certificate exists and if the information on the abbreviated certificate is taken verbatim from the original standard certificate.Certified copies of standard certificates may be produced only by photocopy, dry copy reproduction process, or by typing.

    Demonstrably false.

    First of all, you assert: “Only abbreviated certified certificates may be produced by computer printout”. Such an ‘abbreviated’ certificate is called an ‘abstract’. The certification statement on the signature stamp says that “this is a true copy or abstract”. So it is exactly what it says it is.

    Further HDOH Chapter 8B Section 2.4 B(2)(a) says explicitly that

    Abbreviated copies my be prepared by typing, by computer printout, or by any other process approved by the director.

    Also see Policy Memo May 15 2001

    This policy memo states that, in Hawai’i, the standard form is the computer generated abstract (or abbreviation if you prefer). Anything else, is non-standard. Obama’s 2007 forms (published in 2008) are standard; the 2011 forms are non-standard.

    Consequently if any image of a standard certificate indicates modification, manipulation or printing by a computer then that image is necessarily a forgery.

    This assertion is absurd. A birth certificate is a document carrying a certification and security icons such as raised seals. In Hawai’i, the standard form of a birth certificate is currently a computer printed abstract. That document, certified as a true abstract, is a piece of paper, not an image of a piece of paper.

    Some non-standard birth certificate forms prepared by photocopying do exist (we know that Obama has at least two such copies). These documents, certified as true copies, are pieces of paper, not images of a piece of paper. In an imaging process, whether by photocopy, computer scanner, or photographic camera, these documents are ‘originals’.

    An image of either of these two certified documents is not a certified document (unless the DoH certifies those images in turn, but they don’t need to certify images of a document when they can just make new certified abstracts and/or copies), the images are not birth certificates. They are images of birth certificates. It is paper document that those images are images of that is the birth certificate.

    The security icons on a Birth Certificate are purposely designed to ensure that no image of the Birth Certificate can be mistaken for the Birth Certificate itself. Your assertion is silly on the face of it: every image of a Birth Certificate will, by definition, ‘show modification’. There will always be very real differences between the real document and the image.

  40. avatar
    Paper February 3, 2012 at 10:21 am #

    This situation is more like a bad, mad-house troubleshooting session, back-seat driver version. When you *know* something is wrong (e.g. computer doesn’t work) and you can’t find an obvious problem (computer is plugged in), you start digging, from common to more and more obscure possibilities. You either give up trying to figure it out (buy a new computer, reboot, elect a new president), or you start pulling everything apart and keep pulling everything apart. You go on the internet and search and find people telling you to try this and that and the other thing. The problem is the birth certificate must have been forged! He wasn’t born of two citizen parents!

    Meanwhile, the computer works just fine. It’s just a Mac, and they’ve always used PCs.

  41. avatar
    y_p_w February 3, 2012 at 10:23 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    He can get a copy, just not a certified copy. The statute doesn’t create any right to “personally copy” the certificate.

    I’ve been looking into the stuff the Hawaii Attorney General’s office has filed in this case. 338-18 actually doesn’t give anyone with a “tangible interest” the right to inspect an original document. It only lays out the categories of people who **might** have a “tangible interest”, and of being in such a category **might** allow one to inspect an original record. By inference it spells out who absolutely does not have a right to inspect an original record.

    The law that actually mandates who must be allowed to inspect a record is UIPA, and it’s not even clear that the person has the right to inspect the original. As far as I can tell, the only person who has the absolute legal right to see a copy of the original document in this case is Virginia Sunahara, and she’s not around to make the request.

    I remember there was a Hawaii Attorney General’s office statement that Obama might be able to come in and view his original birth certificate on file, but as I read it the only mandate in that case would be that an intelligible copy must be made available. If it’s a record in the current electronic format, I could see that they would be required to have all the information (and not just the stuff that gets printed to the COLB) available in some human readable form. I don’t see that a requestor would have to be given access to the original storage medium, especially since these are just data files that can be reproduced indefinitely in a “perfect” form.

    http://hawaii.gov/oip/uipa.html#92F21

    [§92F-21] Individual’s access to own personal record. Each agency that maintains any accessible personal record shall make that record available to the individual to whom it pertains, in a reasonably prompt manner and in a reasonably intelligible form. Where necessary the agency shall provide a translation into common terms of any machine readable code or any code or abbreviation employed for internal agency use. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]

    http://hawaii.gov/oip/uipa.html#92F23

    [92F-23] Access to personal record; initial procedure. Upon the request of an individual to gain access to the individual’s personal record, an agency shall permit the individual to review the record and have a copy made within ten working days following the date of receipt of the request by the agency unless the personal record requested is exempted under section 92F-22. The ten-day period may be extended for an additional twenty working days if the agency provides to the individual, within the initial ten working days, a written explanation of unusual circumstances causing the delay.
    [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 2000, c 254, §1]

  42. avatar
    donna February 3, 2012 at 10:24 am #

    birther berg:

    Obama is NOT using a Stolen or Fraudulent [social-security number]

    http://obamacrimes.com/?p=1610

  43. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 10:25 am #

    Hermitian:

    I’m uncertain about the point you’re trying to make. While your thesis may be clear to you, it is not self-evident to a reader. You need to change this if you wish to be understood or taken seriously.

    In addition, you need to be more circumspect about identifying when you are paraphrasing, when you are directly quoting, and when you are making a personal statement or inference. For example, in your posting below, you copy passage from this Hawaii Department of Health pdf:

    http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf

    but you do not place those passages within quotation marks. Moreover, you have mingled your own words with original text. For example, the Hawaii Department Health states,

    “Standard copies of vital records may be produced by photocopy, dry copy reproduction process, or by typing.”

    You altered the meaning of this passage, writing:

    “Certified copies of standard certificates may be produced only by photocopy, dry copy reproduction process, or by typing.”

    As you can see, you changed “standard” to “certified, “vital records” to “standard certificates,” and then added the word “only.”

    Another example, the DoH does not state, as you aver, that “Certified copies of the standard form Certificate of Live Birth may not be produced by computer printout.” Rather, it says, “Standard copies of vital records may be produced by photocopy, dry copy reproduction process, or by typing.” The DoH does not limit reproduction in the way that you suggest.

    Finally, your last sentence, “Consequently if any image of a standard certificate indicates modification, manipulation or printing by a computer then that image is necessarily a forgery,” is neither a direct quote nor a paraphrase of text from DoH regulations. This is something you made up and it should be indicated as such by using introductory signal phrases like, “I feel,” or “I believe,” or “Since I’m a bigoted idiot, without any respect for the truth, I feel . . .”

    hermitian: Certified copies of the standard form Certificate of Live Birth may not be produced by computer printout according to the HDOH Chapter 8B regulations which have not been revised since June 29, 1976. Only abbreviated certified certificates may be produced by computer printout and only if the original standard certificate exists and if the information on the abbreviated certificate is taken verbatim from the original standard certificate. Certified copies of standard certificates may be produced only by photocopy, dry copy reproduction process, or by typing. Consequently if any image of a standard certificate indicates modification, manipulation or printing by a computer then that image is necessarily a forgery.

  44. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 10:29 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: No circus YET. Boulton has since hinted that he will change track and go for the “constitutional issue”. Since he is too late for a new proper challenge, he will probably appeal Freeman or Jackson (there has been speculation that he is also behind one of those). I would not be surprised if he were to then invite “experts” to prove that the birth certificate Kerloff scanned is a fake.

    Such a challenge would have to be in a real court under strict rules of evidence. Of course, Obama’s side would have to present the actual COLB, rather than a scan (I assuming they would use the COLB, since only 2 actual copies of the long form were made). Which would immediately eliminate Vogt and all the “experts” testifying regarding the pdf. And the SSN nonsense would not be allowed. So I don’t see much latitude for anything resembling the Southern Fried Circus in Atlanta.

  45. avatar
    Keith February 3, 2012 at 10:33 am #

    Paper: Meanwhile, the computer works just fine. It’s just a Mac, and they’ve always used PCs.

    I agree. The rational thing to do when looking at a computer fault is to target what was changed since the last time it worked properly. You arrive at the Mac/PC swap very quickly and with much less heartache that way.

  46. avatar
    Keith February 3, 2012 at 10:37 am #

    Arthur: Hermitian:

    You did a much better job than I did.

  47. avatar
    y_p_w February 3, 2012 at 10:40 am #

    Keith: The security icons on a Birth Certificate are purposely designed to ensure that no image of the Birth Certificate can be mistaken for the Birth Certificate itself. Your assertion is silly on the face of it: every image of a Birth Certificate will, by definition, ‘show modification’. There will always be very real differences between the real document and the image.

    Hawaii’s birth certificate form does seem to be rather unique these days. I’ve been interested in this since the story broke, and I haven’t heard of any other city, county, or state that currently uses some sort of commercial off the shelf paper other than Hawaii. I remember reading the DHHS report on birth certificate fraud, and they did mention that a few counties used paper that wasn’t standardized by the state. One specific example was a county office that printed birth certificates on plain white copy paper, although the inference was that they did place a certification statement and a seal. I’m wondering if they’ve changed by now.

    These days I’m seeing that almost every vital records issuer uses some sort of custom-printed paper. It may not always be the pricey banknote style paper with an intaglio border where one can feel the raised ink. However, watermarks, security threads, void ghosts, color gradients, UV sensitive inks, holograms, and color shifting inks (think new large denomination bills) are commonly being employed.

    I’m not sure why Hawaii has gone the route of a generic security paper. It’s certainly sensible in that it makes attempts to alter a certificate difficult. Try to erase it and the pattern gets obliterated or the pattern dye shifts (with solvents). I think it’s a reasonably secure format they’ve got, but it’s probably true that banknote style paper is considered more secure.

  48. avatar
    Keith February 3, 2012 at 10:48 am #

    y_p_w: I think it’s a reasonably secure format they’ve got, but it’s probably true that banknote style paper is considered more secure.

    You are no doubt correct, but the paper is not the only security icon on the form. The raised seal is another. A photocopy may capture a vague image of the seal, but not its 3D quality.

  49. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 10:49 am #

    I don’t think so, but thanks. By the way, I enjoyed your exasperated reply to Mr. Nash.

    Keith: You did a much better job than I did.

  50. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 3, 2012 at 10:51 am #

    Reality Check:
    All you ever needed to know about Doug Vogt’s creditability or 12,068 reasons Doug Vogt is a complete kook:
    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20001007&slug=4046570

    Wow! That’s the first time I’d seen that. “Complete kook” is the understatement of this century.

  51. avatar
    John Woodman February 3, 2012 at 12:48 pm #

    Bob: That’s the saddest thing I’ve read in a while.

    When I spoke to Mr. Vogt on the phone on January 13, I was very clear in stating to him that his conclusions were wrong. He in turn was very animated in asserting his belief that he is correct.

    I’ve never commented much on Mr. Vogt’s other claims, preferring to stick to what he’s had to say about the birth certificate. But some of his other claims are certainly colorful, aren’t they? The claim to have found the real Mt. Sinai isn’t Mr Vogt’s only interesting claim. He’s also an authority on multidimensional reality, gravitational mystery spots — don’t miss the interesting cover blurb on the back — and the real cause of global warming, polar reversals, ice ages, etc.

    As to why Mr. Vogt is wrong on the birth certificate, there’s a brief summary in this article. A fuller explanation is in my book, published 5 months ago. As of January 13, Mr. Vogt had yet not found the time to address the points I made, or (according to my cordial conversation with him), to read them.

  52. avatar
    ellen February 3, 2012 at 1:09 pm #

    Adrien Nash said:

    “But aside from the issue of forgery, the BC is irrelevant since it’s unrelated to the issue of presidential eligibility. Natural citizenship is not dependent upon place of birth. Just consider John McCain who is a natural born citizen.”

    That is correct. Both McCain and Obama are Natural Born Citizens because there are two criteria. Obama falls under the first, McCain under the second.

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    McCain was born to US citizens abroad and Obama was born in the USA. And it does not matter how many US parents you have if you are born in the USA.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

  53. avatar
    richCares February 3, 2012 at 2:12 pm #

    “All you ever needed to know about Doug Vogt’s creditability or 12,068 reasons Doug Vogt is a complete kook:”
    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20001007&slug=4046570
    .
    could you imagine Vogt on the witness stand and this stuff comes up. Total disaster for birfirstan

  54. avatar
    hermitian February 3, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    Arthur

    “Hermitian:
    I’m uncertain about the point you’re trying to make. While your thesis may be clear to you, it is not self-evident to a reader. You need to change this if you wish to be understood or taken seriously.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Well it’s very simple Arthur. The point is that the abbreviated certificates cannot be inspected. Consequently, then only standard certificates can be inspected. However, inspections are intended under §338-18. Therefore if only abbreviated certificates are issued and the requester is denied the standard certificate and/or the inspection of same, then the inspection provision under §338-18 is rendered void. These kind of knee-jerk reactions taken by HDOH are illegal because it renders moot the intent of the Hawaii Legislature to permit inspection of vital statistic records.

    Ҥ338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
    (b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
    (1) The registrant;
    (5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;”
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “In addition, you need to be more circumspect about identifying when you are paraphrasing, when you are directly quoting, and when you are making a personal statement or inference. For example, in your posting below, you copy passage from this Hawaii” Department of Health pdf:
    http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf
    “but you do not place those passages within quotation marks. Moreover, you have mingled your own words with original text. For example, the Hawaii Department Health states,
    “Standard copies of vital records may be produced by photocopy, dry copy reproduction process, or by typing.”“

    “You altered the meaning of this passage, writing:
    “Certified copies of standard certificates may be produced only by photocopy, dry copy reproduction process, or by typing.”
    As you can see, you changed “standard” to “certified, “vital records” to “standard certificates,” and then added the word “only.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    “B Standards for Copies of Vital Records
    (1) Standard Copy
    (a) Method of preparation. Standard copies of vital records may be prepared by photographic, dry copy reproduction process or by typing. If prepared by standard photographic process, the copy must not be smaller than one-half the size of the original. If prepared by dry copy process, heavy grade safety paper or specially treated paper must be used.
    (b) Form of certification. Standard certi?ed copies shall contain an appropriate certi?cation statement over the signature of the registrar having custody of the record and be impressed with the raised seal of the issuing of?ce. The signature may be ‘photo-
    graphed or entered by mechanical means. The paper shall display the of?cial seal of the Department of Health or the seal of the State.
    (2) Abbreviated Copy
    (a) Method of preparation. Abbreviated copies may be prepared by
    typing, by computer printout, or by any other process approved
    by the Director.”

    As I originally stated:
    “Certified copies of standard certificates may be produced only by photocopy, dry copy reproduction process, or by typing.”

    Additionally, abbreviated copies may be prepared by typing, by computer printout, or by any other process approved by the Director.

    Consequently, under existing HDOH regulations, only abbreviated copies may be prepared by computer printout.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “Another example, the DoH does not state, as you aver, that “Certified copies of the standard form Certificate of Live Birth may not be produced by computer printout.” Rather, it says, “Standard copies of vital records may be produced by photocopy, dry copy reproduction process, or by typing.”

    “The DoH does not limit reproduction in the way that you suggest.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    As posted above the current HDOH regulation does not say that standard copies may be prepared by computer printout or by any other methods than those that I stated previously. I guess the HDOH could amend their regulations but they haven’t since Feb. 1981.

    However, the same regulation does state that abbreviated copies may be prepared by computer printout.

    I think I see that you are confusing the HDOH laws with the HDOH regulations.

    §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]

    This law is all-inclusive as to the two different types of certificates. The regulations are specific to each type, i.e. standard or abbreviated. The methods of copying listed in the law cover both certificate types. For example, the laws do not say that replacement standard certificates can be produced by computer scanning.

    §338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office, which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like force and effect as the original. [L 1949, c 327, §23; RL 1955, §57-22; am L 1957, c 8, §1; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-19]
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    “Finally, your last sentence, “Consequently if any image of a standard certificate indicates modification, manipulation or printing by a computer then that image is necessarily a forgery,” is neither a direct quote nor a paraphrase of text from DoH regulations. This is something you made up and it should be indicated as such by using introductory signal phrases like, “I feel,” or “I believe,” or “Since I’m a bigoted idiot, without any respect for the truth, I feel . . .”
    hermitian: Certified copies of the standard form Certificate of Live Birth may not be produced by computer printout according to the HDOH Chapter 8B regulations which have not been revised since June 29, 1976. Only abbreviated certified certificates may be produced by computer printout and only if the original standard certificate exists and if the information on the abbreviated certificate is taken verbatim from the original standard certificate. Certified copies of standard certificates may be produced only by photocopy, dry copy reproduction process, or by typing. Consequently if any image of a standard certificate indicates modification, manipulation or printing by a computer then that image is necessarily a forgery”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    I made my case on what the laws and the regulations say not what they don’t say. I think even idiot bigoted Obot lawers would agree with that methodology.

    It’s clear that HDOH regulations and laws do not permit the making of any copies of standard certificates by computer scanning. Such copies would therefore necessarily not be certified or authentic. Any alteration of a certified copy of a document renders it with no probative value. It’s probative value can only be re-established by a court.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  55. avatar
    JoZeppy February 3, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

    Adrien Nash: The Vogt analysis must be consumed with a heaping tablespoon of trust, trust in his experience, competence and intelligence.

    Too bad his track record totally undermines any trust, and certain are a strike against any presumption of competence or intelligence….he’s a nutter with a track record of saying nutty things.

    Adrien Nash: But the claims that he makes are essentially things that you have to take his word on, or not.

    I’ll go with “or not” thank you very much.

    Adrien Nash: I always felt that there must be a true Photoshop author or expert user out there who would weigh in on the BC, but none has bothered to come forward to support or refute either sides claims, -authentic scan? or digital fake?

    Actually, a few computer experts have come forward on the pdf (and why the focus on Photoshop….the document wasn’t even scanned with an adobe product). And they agree…they can find no evidence of tampering with the pdf. That’s about all they can say. But more to the point, the pdf doesn’t matter. It’s the physical document that the President has allowed the press to examine and handle that is the real issue. All this arguing about pdfs is a waste of everyone’s time.

    Adrien Nash: “officials in the state of Hawai’i published on their official websites that the documents published by Obama, and entered as exhibits by Orly, were true copies of the actual documents.”
    This statement misstates the facts. No one from Hawaii has gone on the record before any trier of fact, nor signed any notarized affidavit confirming anything about the BC digital image. They haven’t claimed that it was issued by the state of Hawaii because they don’t issue digital files, only paper documents, but the White House has never presented any paper document to any one with the knowledge and background to know if it is genuine.

    First off, you seem to be stuck on this digital image thing. The digital images are of little consequence. The state of Hawaii has gone on the record to confirm the President’s birth in that state. The official custodian of record has made public statements in her capacity as custodian of those records as to the index data that was publicly released and as to the existence of the records with the state. They have published the states official index information regarding the President’s birth (and the index data is also public information). The digital image is not what matters. It’s merely the fact that the President was born on US soil. The President’s birth on US soil is confirmed.

    Adrien Nash: Also what’s wrong with that statement was the use of the term “true copy”. Hawaii ceased providing “TRUE COPY” replications years ago and now only provides “ABSTRACT” representations of the birth original. It can’t be certified as being a true copy of anything because it doesn’t represent a true copy of anything. It’s an abstract imitation, and therefore doesn’t serve as an authentic true copy of an original bc.

    And this just displays your lack of how government documents work. Both the “Long” and “short” forms are official government documents. In their paper copies, irresepctive of whether the stamp says “true copy” or “abstract” it serves the same function. It is an official record of the person’s birth, and all the proof one needs to legally establish US birth.

    Adrien Nash: But aside from the issue of forgery, the BC is irrelevant since it’s unrelated to the issue of presidential eligibility. Natural citizenship is not dependent upon place of birth. Just consider John McCain who is a natural born citizen. For a full understanding of the truth about natural citizenship, read the essay I spent the whole afternoon penning and polishing. It’s on my blog here: http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/a-natural-american/ It’s titled: WHO IS A NATURAL AMERICAN and WHO IS NOT? (who can be President and who can not?) It explains everything and blows away much of the unnecessary legal fog on what a natural born citizen is. I expect it’s my final word on the subject since I’ve now examined and explained it from every conceivable angle.

    I’m sorry you wasted a whole afternoon on that meaningless clap-trap. Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the rest of us, you don’t get to make up what legal terms of art used in the Constitution mean. You wrote a nice little story about what you would like the term NBC to mean. Guess what? No one cares what you think. You’re not that special. Do you just randomly show up at a hosptial and perform open heart surgery too? Perhaps you should show up at a road construction site some time and tell them how to build a bridge? I just don’t understand why on earth you would remotely think that you could suddenly define all on your own a term that has some 400 year legal history, and decide all by your lonesome what the heck it means? And also…what “legal fog?” Those who know the first thing about the law think the definition is pretty clear on it’s core (interestingly enough, the one person you mention as an example is one that the legal scholars actually debate). If you don’t want to come off as a complete idiot, don’t make wholly unsupported statements about subjects you don’t have the first clue about, and try to pretend to be some authority on the subject. Legal terms are identified by the law, whether it be statutory or common law. Some random nutter off the street with an overinflated sense of self doesn’t get to pull definitions out of the blue and tell the world what they should be.

  56. avatar
    hermitian February 3, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

    Keith

    “Also see 1. Policy Memo May 15 2001
    This policy memo states that, in Hawai’i, the standard form is the computer generated abstract (or abbreviation if you prefer). Anything else, is non-standard. Obama’s 2007 forms (published in 2008) are standard; the 2011 forms are non-standard.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Well these kind of screw ups are what you always get when you make up the laws as you go to just to win some law suits. Here’s what the Hawaii law says about “standard” certificates:

    “§338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health. In addition, the forms of death certificates shall require the individual’s social security number. The form and use of the certificates shall be subject to sections 338-16 to 338-18. [L 1949, c 327, §15; RL 1955, §57-14; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-11; am L 1997, c 293, §17]”

    The term “shall include as a minimum the items” is a limiting condition under this law. The abbreviated certificate does not include the minimum items. Therefore there must be another “standard” certificate that does contain the minimum items. Only a bunch of idiot lawyers would have two different standard certificates in existence at the same time. But what can I say, idiot lawyers are in great supply.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 3:27 pm #

    I can see how this is confusing to you since the word “standard” is used in different ways in these two contexts. “Standard” in the policy memo refers to the standard form used for certified copies for the public.This is the form of certificate issued.

    The “standard certificate” in the statute refers to the information collected on a birth (the hospital’s birth certificate registered by the State), which includes an ever-growing list of information that’s both legal and medical and much of which is inappropriate (and downright illegal) to appear on a public certificate. (I have 3 decades experience in Vital Records, so I understand this stuff.)

    hermitian:
    Keith

    “Also see 1. Policy Memo May 15 2001
    This policy memo states that, in Hawai’i, the standard form is the computer generated abstract (or abbreviation if you prefer). Anything else, is non-standard. Obama’s 2007 forms (published in 2008) are standard; the 2011 forms are non-standard.”

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Well these kind of screw ups are what you always get when you make up the laws as you go to just to win some law suits.Here’s what the Hawaii law says about “standard” certificates:

    “§338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health. In addition, the forms of death certificates shall require the individual’s social security number. The form and use of the certificates shall be subject to sections 338-16 to 338-18. [L 1949, c 327, §15; RL 1955, §57-14; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-11; am L 1997, c 293, §17]”

    The term “shall include as a minimum the items” is a limiting condition under this law.The abbreviated certificate does not include the minimum items.Therefore there must be another “standard” certificate that does contain the minimum items.Only a bunch of idiot lawyers would have two different standard certificates in existence at the same time.But what can I say, idiot lawyers are in great supply.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 3:33 pm #

    Well, if you had ever seen a modern hospital birth certificate, you’d understand. It’s full of federally protected health information like complications of labor and delivery, drug and alcohol use by the mother, congenital malformities and such. You should exercise caution reading legislation in a specialized area using a layman’s understanding of the language. You’ll get it wrong. “Standard form” and “birth certificate” mean different things depending on whether it’s what a hospital creates or whether it’s what a state issues to consumers.

    But you don’t have to listen to me. Just go file a lawsuit in Hawaii and let the judge explain it to you.

    hermitian: Therefore if only abbreviated certificates are issued and the requester is denied the standard certificate and/or the inspection of same, then the inspection provision under §338-18 is rendered void.

  59. avatar
    y_p_w February 3, 2012 at 3:37 pm #

    hermitian: “§338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health. In addition, the forms of death certificates shall require the individual’s social security number. The form and use of the certificates shall be subject to sections 338-16 to 338-18. [L 1949, c 327, §15; RL 1955, §57-14; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-11; am L 1997, c 293, §17]”

    The term “shall include as a minimum the items” is a limiting condition under this law. The abbreviated certificate does not include the minimum items. Therefore there must be another “standard” certificate that does contain the minimum items. Only a bunch of idiot lawyers would have two different standard certificates in existence at the same time. But what can I say, idiot lawyers are in great supply.

    I just can’t help laughing here. This is absolute slapstick.

    §338-11 applies to whatever original form or file that’s stored at the Dept of Health. It’s not a requirement for what goes into certified copies, which are regulated by §338-13. Hawaii considers the original file or document to be the “certificate” and the official department attestation as to the information in the original “certificate” as the “certified copy” or “letter of verification”.

    There’s a heck of a lot of stuff that’s in the standard certificate of the Public Health Service, including sensitive medical information. That part is almost universally cut out of any certified copy of a birth certificate – even if it’s a photographic representation of the original document. There is no way Hawaii is going to put that stuff on a certified copy.

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 3:38 pm #

    Actually there are 4 recognized experts who have examined the document. Ivan Zatkovich (working for WorldNetDaily) concluded that there were no signs of fraud. WND refused to print his report, but he released it elsewhere. Two other document experts did reports for WND that weren’t released either but Aaron Klein (of WND) said that those reports were similar to Zatkovich. Finally Neal Krawetz examined it and didn’t find indications of fraud.

    So the oft-repeated birther story that “every document expert…” is just something they say that’s not true.

    Adrien Nash: I always felt that there must be a true Photoshop author or expert user out there who would weigh in on the BC, but none has bothered to come forward to support or refute either sides claims, -authentic scan? or digital fake?

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    I scanned my own raised-seal birth certificate, and you can’t find it in the image.

    Keith: A photocopy may capture a vague image of the seal, but not its 3D quality.

  62. avatar
    misha February 3, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    hermitian: But what can I say, idiot lawyers are in great supply.

    Half of all lawyers graduated in the bottom half of their class. Take Apuzzo, for example. I will concede he got an ‘A’ in Ambulance Chasing 101.

    “idiot lawyers are in great supply” Exhibit A is Svetlana Orly Taitz.

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2012 at 3:45 pm #

    I talked to a county vital statistics director in Indiana about this. They have a law that says the public can get a copy of the original certificate. They try to discourage people from getting these, but if someone insists, they get out the black marker (figuratively — they actually have a mask on the computer imaging system).

    y_p_w: There’s a heck of a lot of stuff that’s in the standard certificate of the Public Health Service, including sensitive medical information. That part is almost universally cut out of any certified copy of a birth certificate – even if it’s a photographic representation of the original document. There is no way Hawaii is going to put that stuff on a certified copy.

  64. avatar
    J. Potter February 3, 2012 at 3:52 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I scanned my own raised-seal birth certificate, and you can’t find it in the image.

    Gosh, you mean when you shine directly at a 90 angle to an embossed surface, the embossing casts no shadow? That simple geometry can be elusive.

    Of course, paper may not be perfectly flat, resulting in a vague hint of indentations. The embossed seal is visible in the WH PDF. Lower left, above stamped date, top center of seal is at the top left of box 21.

  65. avatar
    Obsolete February 3, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

    Speaking of right angles and squares (in another thread), wasn’t Vogt also into “pyramid power” or am I confusing him with another crank?

  66. avatar
    hermitian February 3, 2012 at 4:12 pm #

    “Dr. Conspiracy

    No, it only means that it is not a certified copy. “Forgery” is your word, not what is in the regulation.
    However, HDOH Chapter 8B is replaced by HRS §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]
    which is not in agreement with your claim.
    hermitian: Consequently if any image of a standard certificate indicates modification, manipulation or printing by a computer then that image is necessarily a forgery.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    Wrong! Laws don’t replace regulations. HDOH Chapter 8B is the current regulation. See:

    http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/admrules/default.aspx

    “Office of Health Status Monitoring
    1. 117
    Vital Statistics, Registration & Records. Converting from Public Health Regulations Chapters 8, 8A, and 8B
    to Administrative Rules.
    New Rules in Process
    Alvin Onaka”
    (808) 586-4600

    Also See:

    Ҥ338-2 Authority and duties of the department of health. The department of health, herein referred to as the department, shall:
    1. (1) Establish a central bureau of public health statistics with suitable offices properly equipped for the safety and preservation of all its official records;
    (2) Install a statewide system of public health statistics;
    (3) Make and amend, after notice and hearing, necessary regulations, give instructions and prescribe forms for collecting, transcribing, compiling, and preserving public health statistics; and
    (4) Enforce this part and the regulations made pursuant thereto. [L 1949, c 327, §3; RL 1955, §57-2; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-2]

    Consequently, the Director of Health Loretta Fuddy has the responsibility to make, amend and enforce the HDOH regulations per §338-2 .

    Any alteration of a certified document renders it non-certified. The rules for acquiring a Hawaii ID do not permit use of altered documents for the application.

    See: http://hawaii.gov/ag/hcjdc/main/hawaii_id_cards/

    “All changes in status or name due to marriage, divorce, annulment, adoption, or citizenship must be supported by legal, certified documents. Copied, altered, or illegible documents are not acceptable. Proof of Hawaii address may be required.”

    The intent of such a rule would be to prevent the presentation of forged documents.

    Also see my comments to Arthur regarding permitted methods for making certified copies of the two types of birth certificates.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  67. avatar
    John Woodman February 3, 2012 at 4:15 pm #

    According to his own press, Mr. Vogt has explained “many of the hardest phenomena in the Universe such as:

    the causes of the ice ages
    polar reversals
    mass extinctions
    gravity
    light
    pyramid energy
    kirlian photography
    psychic phenomena
    and more.”

  68. avatar
    J. Potter February 3, 2012 at 4:37 pm #

    John Woodman: According to his own press, Mr. Vogt has explained “many of the hardest phenomena in the Universe

    It is amazing that Vogt hasn’t taken that down! Or at least scrubbed the connections between his crank publishing and his reports, in true birther style. Only sensible explanation is that he is proud of it all. And he’s not a birther. He’s a wannabe von Daniken!

    It was fun to lead his fans down the trail of crumbs back to his sites and ask if they were still taking him seriously. The tapdancing was fast, furious, and immediate. ;)

  69. avatar
    J. Potter February 3, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: But you don’t have to listen to me. Just go file a lawsuit in Hawaii and let the judge explain it to you.

    Nice one, Doc! Hermitian is a troll, he hopped over from Amazon. You may recognize him from there. He usually isn’t too obnoxious, or offensive, but will run on and on—and on—never admit error (despite making many), and occasionally stray off-topic. And stay off-topic.

  70. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 4:49 pm #

    You’re wrong.

    hermitian: It’s clear that HDOH regulations and laws do not permit the making of any copies of standard certificates by computer scanning. Such copies would therefore necessarily not be certified or authentic. Any alteration of a certified copy of a document renders it with no probative value. It’s probative value can only be re-established by a court.

  71. avatar
    John Woodman February 3, 2012 at 4:50 pm #

    Never admitting error seems to be an essential birther characteristic.

    Which makes a great deal of sense, actually.

    I started out as at least somewhat skeptical of Mr. Obama’s eligibility. I never described myself as a “birther,” but I was somewhat skeptical.

    Those who admit or recognize error tend to leave the birther camp. So it makes a great deal of sense that the birther camp is composed of a lot of people who don’t admit error. It’s self-selecting.

  72. avatar
    J. Potter February 3, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

    John Woodman: it makes a great deal of sense that the birther camp is composed of a lot of people who don’t admit error.

    Very true and an excellent, concise diagnosis! Still, it is amusing when these characters refuse to admit any error, no matter how obvious or trivial, as if acknowledging a typo would put them on a slippery slope to admitting the Big One. Perhaps, as you describe, it’s pathological!

  73. avatar
    sfjeff February 3, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    Hermitian- your beef is with Hawaii- not us.

    You do not have to convince us of anything, but you will need to convince Hawaii.

    Hawaii has said that your interpretation is wrong. Go work it out with them.

    In the meantime, i will go with what Hawaii says is correct.

  74. avatar
    richCares February 3, 2012 at 5:25 pm #

    too bad for john, the judge has ruled:
    President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary
    signed Michael M. Malihi

    link to scribd:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012

  75. avatar
    J. Potter February 3, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    JPotter: nonsense need not be refuted.

    I bear repeating ;) …. or, as Malihi wrote, the testimoney given and written exhibits submitted have little probative value. He tore up all the witnesses “qualifications,” and managed to do it in a nice way.

  76. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    You are absolutely correct in your observation on this.

    There is nothing wrong with sincere yet objective skepticism, such as you displayed.

    Fortunately, you were not blinded by needing confirmation bias.

    Those other sad folks have to keep estranging themselves further and further from reality in order to maintain their delusions. That is simply a path to true madness…

    I’m glad that you started sane and remained sane throughout the entire process.

    John Woodman: Never admitting error seems to be an essential birther characteristic. Which makes a great deal of sense, actually. I started out as at least somewhat skeptical of Mr. Obama’s eligibility. I never described myself as a “birther,” but I was somewhat skeptical. Those who admit or recognize error tend to leave the birther camp. So it makes a great deal of sense that the birther camp is composed of a lot of people who don’t admit error. It’s self-selecting.

  77. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

    richCares:
    too bad for john, the judge has ruled:
    President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary
    signed Michael M. Malihi

    link to scribd:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012

    BOOYAH!

    Gee, who could have predicted another BIRTHER FAIL except for all of the non-bigoted, sane people with normal reading comprehension skills?

    Massive birther bigot whining and cries of bribery and corruption in 3 . . 2 . . 1 . .

  78. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 5:59 pm #

    It may not start off pathological…but it seems to build up as a bad habit over time and become pathological as a result. That’s my observational opinion.

    Our neurological abilities to retain information and make inferences is flexible and adaptable. Reinforced patterns of behavior and thought can strengthen or weaken different neurological pathways over time. You could say that we have a limited ability to rewire our own brains.

    Therefore, such destructive “fantasy thinking” in order to hide from “inconvenient truths” appears to be a dangerous habit over the long term. People may not be crazy when they start…but they seem to have the ability to truly eventually cross the threshold of true madness – where they not just come across as crazy, but truly become crazy as a result. It is very similar to how brainwashing works on people and the scarring effects it can leave on the brain and one’s ability to think critically. Some may eventually be able to recover via an extreme epiphany of having their facade crash down, allowing them to experience a paradigm shift. Others, sadly, may have damaged their minds beyond full repair… Some simply lack the capability for true critical thinking and are “miswired” in the first place…

    J. Potter: Very true and an excellent, concise diagnosis! Still, it is amusing when these characters refuse to admit any error, no matter how obvious or trivial, as if acknowledging a typo would put them on a slippery slope to admitting the Big One. Perhaps, as you describe, it’s pathological!

  79. avatar
    Obsolete February 3, 2012 at 6:01 pm #

    John Woodman: I started out as at least somewhat skeptical of Mr. Obama’s eligibility. I never described myself as a “birther,” but I was somewhat skeptical.

    I could change this sentence to describe myself in a similar situation:
    “I started out as at least somewhat skeptical of 9/11 and official explanations. I never described myself as a “truther,” but I was somewhat skeptical.”

    Of course, I am now convinced that trutherism is birtherism’s bunk cousin. I don’t have John Woodman’s patience to deal with the truthers who I wish weren’t on my “side of the aisle”.

  80. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 3, 2012 at 6:13 pm #

    Majority Will: Massive birther bigot whining and cries of bribery and corruption in 3 . . 2 . . 1 . .

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=31124

    Orly Taitz moments ago: “Yap, it looks like Obama regime got to yet another judge…….”

    The comments go down hill from there.

  81. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

    KABOOM!!! That is the sound of reality crashing down on Birther heads everywhere!

    The biggest irony that should eat at the Birthers from this is that they destroyed their own case, simply by INSISTING to provide their crazy testimony. Jablonski dodged a bullet from the judge, thanks to the Birthers demands that they be “heard on the merits”… LOL!

    Ordinarily, the Court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.30(1) and (5). Nonetheless, despite the Defendant’s failure to appear, Plaintiffs asked this Court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request.

    By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct
    or legal scholarship of Defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely
    based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.

    That was always my only area of concern in this case – that a “default” technicality for failure to participate could cause this nonsense to extend longer than needed. But thankfully, the Birther’s own demonstration of crazy in front of the judge outweighed the judge’s anger at being blown off by the defense… So yeah, dodged a bullet there.

    The judge then breaks down his ruling into two sections. Section 1 deals with just Orly’s case and Section 2 deals with the Donofrio nonsense behind all of their cases.

    Here are the key excerpts I found most important in Section 1, which really confirm everything we’ve been telling the Birthers all along:

    When considering the testimony and exhibits, this Court applies the same rules of evidence that apply to civil nonjury cases in superior court. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(1)—(9). The weight to be given to any evidence shall be determined by the Court based upon its reliability and probative value. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 616-1-2-.18(10).

    The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations. Ms. Taitz attempted to solicit expert testimony from several of the witnesses without qualifying or tendering the witnesses as experts.

    (for the testimony of an expert witness to be received, his or her qualifications as such must be first proved).

    None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value. Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.

    Section 2 is where the judge tells the Birthers everything we’ve been trying to get through their thick heads about WKA and NBC in US law all along. For the icing on the cake, the judge also cites to the Arkeny case to back it up.

    Most of the ruling is a well detailed breakdown of explaining what Minor, WKA and the Arkeny case actually mean and why the Birther claims are bogus. It is well worth reading in its entirety, but as it says what we have been trying to point out all along, I’ll cut to the chase and just highlight the summary points:

    This Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny persuasive.

    For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. Accordingly,

    CONCLUSION

    President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b).

    It should be quite interesting and entertaining to watch the fallout and wailing in Birtherdom on this one.

    As we repeatedly tried to tell them all along, their finally getting “heard” in court, would only lead to getting definitively smacked down and having their fantasy bubbles officially burst. The question is, will any of them *finally* learn from this… or are they still too invested in their delusions that they’ll keep banging their heads on this dead-end wall of stupidity… I suspect the latter for most of them. Maybe a few will see the light, perhaps. Time will tell. Either way, their “day in court” has effectively “officially” killed their myths, regardless…

    richCares: too bad for john, the judge has ruled:President Barack Obama is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primarysigned Michael M. Malihilink to scribd:http://www.scribd.com/doc/80417613/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Judge-Malihi-Final-Decision-Georgia-Ballot-Challenge-2-3-2012

  82. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2012 at 6:44 pm #

    G: s we repeatedly tried to tell them all along, their finally getting “heard” in court, would only lead to getting definitively smacked down and having their fantasy bubbles officially burst. The question is, will any of them *finally* learn from this… or are they still too invested in their delusions that they’ll keep banging their heads on this dead-end wall of stupidity… I suspect the latter for most of them.

    Will Carl “GOP Good Ol’ Boy” Swensson refund any money to his pathetic handful of anonymous donors?

  83. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

    LMAO! “Yap”… the Orly reaction, along with her flying monkey brigade…all too predictable! LOL!

    CarlOrcas: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=31124Orly Taitz moments ago: “Yap, it looks like Obama regime got to yet another judge…….”The comments go down hill from there.

  84. avatar
    Scientist February 3, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    G: As we repeatedly tried to tell them all along, their finally getting “heard” in court, would only lead to getting definitively smacked down and having their fantasy bubbles officially burst. The question is, will any of them *finally* learn from this… or are they still too invested in their delusions that they’ll keep banging their heads on this dead-end wall of stupidity… I suspect the latter for most of them. Maybe a few will see the light, perhaps. Time will tell. Either way, their “day in court” has effectively “officially” killed their myths, regardless…

    they didn’t learn from Ankeny, so why would they learn from this? That was after all a Court of Appeals and this is just an ALJ.

  85. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

    I did find one part of Orly’s response to be both interesting and actually providing an example of some small awareness in her dark brain. In comment #12, she defends why the Birther lawyers provided testimony instead of taking a “default judgment”

    no, default judgments are easily overturned and we would have nothing.

    Probably the only thing she has been right about yet… :)

    G: LMAO! “Yap”… the Orly reaction, along with her flying monkey brigade…all too predictable! LOL!

  86. avatar
    Keith February 3, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    hermitian: Well it’s very simple Arthur. The point is that the abbreviated certificates cannot be inspected.

    Of course they can. They are done so by millions of Americans everyday. Everytime they present to obtain a drivers license, register for school or to vote, enlist in the military, etc, etc, etc.

    For the eleventyseventh bazillionth time: a Birth Certificate is a piece of paper with birth event information listed on it carrying an official certification that that information listed is accurate.

    A birth certificate is not a scanned image of a birth certificate rendered on a computer monitor, nor is it a computer database record.

    The scanned image or the computer database record can become a birth certificate if they are printed out and officially certified. If that is done they are Birth Certificates, that is they are then “true copies or abstracts” of the archived birth event information maintained by the State government custodian of vital statistics, and as such Birth Certificates and prima facie evidence in any court or legal proceeding anywhere in the United States.

  87. avatar
    Keith February 3, 2012 at 7:01 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I scanned my own raised-seal birth certificate, and you can’t find it in the image.

    I”m not sure what your assertion is meant to convey. Are you backing me up or correcting me?

    I said a scan may capture an image of the seal, not that it would not.

    I also said that an image of the seal would not be 3D. Are you saying you can feel the bumps on your scanned image?

  88. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    As you can see from what I wrote, I certainly don’t expect most of them to learn at all.

    However, just as the LFBC release did succeed in waking up a few of them to reality, an actual judge finally “hearing their merits” and debunking them in writing just might sink through to a small few of them…

    For one thing, this is the first time that a judge has directly responded in saying that all their myths are nonsense and that their “experts” don’t qualify as real experts.

    Most of them simply ignore Ankeny because it took place in 2009… before many of them really moved the goal posts from “born in Kenya” to jumping onto the “Cult of Donofrio”. Birthers have very short memories anyways, which is why they buy into a myth created in 2008 and try to reimagine their own pasts as being full of “2 citizen parent” textbooks in the first place.

    Now that they have a current 2012 judge written smackdown that goes to great length to breakdown Arkeny, WKA and Minor, some of them, who have simply been bamboozled by Donofrio & Apuzzo’s pseudo-law nonsense, might actually “wake up”…

    As this has been the biggest Birther “Great White Hope” story in a long, long time… they have all been very aware of it and been breathlessly waiting for results. It *should* be a lot harder for some of them to reconcile this smackdown with their myths.

    So, I remain hopeful that a *few* might see the light… However, I am fully aware that most of the Birthers out there at this point in time are just the die-hard core that are simply too invested in their hate-based fantasies to recover.

    So yeah, neither I nor you nor anyone else here will be surprised to just hear most of them double down on the stupid and persist in their endless quixotic FAIL quest…

    But when the Trolls pop up over here, we can waste a lot less time dealing with them. Simply send them links to this ruling, along with the CRS report and the HI DOH FAQ and tell them to learn to read and take a hike…

    Scientist: they didn’t learn from Ankeny, so why would they learn from this? That was after all a Court of Appeals and this is just an ALJ.

  89. avatar
    Keith February 3, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

    I think I misread your assertion. I guess you are backing me up. Thanks 8-)

  90. avatar
    J. Potter February 3, 2012 at 7:07 pm #

    G: no, default judgments are easily overturned and we would have nothing.

    Silly Orly, she already has nothing!

    And always will.

    In regards to Obama’s eligibility that is. I am sure she leads an otherwise satisfied life.

  91. avatar
    J. Potter February 3, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

    G: But when the Trolls pop up over here, we can waste a lot less time dealing with them. Simply send them links to this ruling, along with the CRS report and the HI DOH FAQ and tell them to learn to read and take a hike…

    Very optimistic, G! You know it’s a permanent vacay in Denial City. Fresh faces are popping up all over, even on a Friday afternoon, to get their double (triple? quadruple?) downs on the record of the interwebs! :D

  92. avatar
    Keith February 3, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    G:
    I did find one part of Orly’s response to be both interesting and actually providing an example of some small awareness in her dark brain.In comment #12, she defends why the Birther lawyers provided testimony instead of taking a “default judgment”

    Probably the only thing she has been right about yet…

    However, she still hasn’t woke up to the fact that this is ‘only’ a recommendation to the SoS who may yet decide to ignore it and burn the ballots anyway.

    She’s already on to Indiana!

  93. avatar
    Obsolete February 3, 2012 at 7:21 pm #

    In addition to the calls for violence, many on -FreeRepublic have now moved on to the next Great White Hope- Sheriff Joe!

  94. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 7:56 pm #

    ;)

    J. Potter: Very optimistic, G! You know it’s a permanent vacay in Denial City. Fresh faces are popping up all over, even on a Friday afternoon, to get their double (triple? quadruple?) downs on the record of the interwebs!

  95. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

    Oh Keith, you are just trying to fill the crazy woman’s head with even more crazy futile notions… ;)

    I think we all know that the chances of SoS Kemp taking a look at this recommendation and coming to any different conclusion is infinitessimally small in reality…

    Keith: However, she still hasn’t woke up to the fact that this is ‘only’ a recommendation to the SoS who may yet decide to ignore it and burn the ballots anyway. She’s already on to Indiana!

  96. avatar
    G February 3, 2012 at 8:00 pm #

    LOL! Yeah… I guess we should have expected that would be their next fallback GWH !

    Obsolete: In addition to the calls for violence, many on -FreeRepublic have now moved on to the next Great White Hope- Sheriff Joe!

  97. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    Obsolete: In addition to the calls for violence, many on -FreeRepublic have now moved on to the next Great White Hope- Sheriff Joe!

    Aren’t they aware of the fact that he refused to respond to Olry’s subpoena or otherwise help her case?

  98. avatar
    Obsolete February 3, 2012 at 8:14 pm #

    Arthur: Aren’t they aware of the fact that he refused to respond to Olry’s subpoena or otherwise help her case?

    No, because that would go against their reality and last hope…

    “Help me Sheriff Joe Kenobi! You’re my only hope!”

  99. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    Obsolete: No, because that would go against their reality and last hope…

    “Help me Sheriff Joe Kenobi! You’re my only hope!”

    Obi-Joe: This isn’t the Kenyan you’re looking for.
    Birther: This isn’t the Kenyan we’re looking for.

  100. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

    Obsolete: “Help me Sheriff Joe Kenobi! You’re my only hope!”

    Very funny, indeed! Wait; does that make Dr. C. Count Dooku.

  101. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 8:57 pm #

    Obsolete: No, because that would go against their reality and last hope…“Help me Sheriff Joe Kenobi! You’re my only hope!”

    Could Charles Lincoln III play Jaba the Hutt?

  102. avatar
    hermitian February 3, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy

    “I can see how this is confusing to you since the word “standard” is used in different ways in these two contexts. “Standard” in the policy memo refers to the standard form used for certified copies for the public.This is the form of certificate issued.
    The “standard certificate” in the statute refers to the information collected on a birth (the hospital’s birth certificate registered by the State), which includes an ever-growing list of information that’s both legal and medical and much of which is inappropriate (and downright illegal) to appear on a public certificate. (I have 3 decades experience in Vital Records, so I understand this stuff.)
    hermitian:
    Keith
    “Also see 1. Policy Memo May 15 2001
    This policy memo states that, in Hawai’i, the standard form is the computer generated abstract (or abbreviation if you prefer). Anything else, is non-standard. Obama’s 2007 forms (published in 2008) are standard; the 2011 forms are non-standard.”
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    No confusion of terms on my end. There are two types of certificates under the Hawaii law and regulations. These are standard and abbreviated. The standard certificate must by law contain the specified minimum items per “§338-11 Form of certificates”. The abbreviated certificate basically contains the same items as the birth index ( bound volume) with additional information items as approved by the Director. The original standard certificate (and subsequent replacement copies of same) do not have the HDOH (or State) seal or the State Registrar’s date and signature stamps. Only certified copies have these certifying elements.

    The Policy Memo May 15 2001 is not relevant because it is apparently neither law or regulation. I’m not aware under what law or authority the 2001 memo was implemented. Moreover, I believe that this 2001 memo is the rule or procedure implemented by HDOH that Duncan Sunahara contends that HDOH illegally adopted.

    “22. Upon information and belief, the Department of Health has implemented a rule
    and procedure to provide “only computer generated abstract of birth records,” in lieu of a
    “certified copy” of the original birth certificate.
    23. The Department of Health is an agency of the State of Hawaii and pursuant to
    HRS § 321-10, it is subject to the rule-making requirements of HRS §§ 91-1 to 4, of the Hawaii
    Administrative Procedures Act (HAPA).
    24. Plaintiff contends that the Department of Health’s rule and practice is invalid and
    violates HRS § 338-13.
    25. Plaintiff claims that the Department of Health’s “rule” of providing only an
    “abstract” of birth records” and not a certified copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth,
    affects the private rights and interests of the public. Plaintiff claims that the Department of
    Health adopted its rule without complying with the statutory rulemaking procedures under HRS
    §§ 91-1 to 4, (HAPA).”

    The 2007 Obama COLB is a purported certified copy of the abbreviated certificate. The 2011 Obama LFCOLB PDF image is a purported image of a certified copy of the standard certificate.
    These terms are consistent with current HDOH laws and regulations. Until the laws and regulations are amended these are the appropriate labels to use for the two types of certificates.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  103. avatar
    Majority Will February 3, 2012 at 9:40 pm #

    Arthur: Could Charles Lincoln III play Jaba the Hutt?

    Brothers from another mother.

  104. avatar
    Arthur February 3, 2012 at 10:03 pm #

    You’re wrong. And you lose. And your end is showing. Toodles.

    hermitian: No confusion of terms on my end.

  105. avatar
    hermitian February 6, 2012 at 8:19 am #

    Arthur

    I put up the facts and you put up the nonsense and I lose? Oh! I forgot…that’s how the law works in Obamanation.

  106. avatar
    Arthur February 6, 2012 at 8:55 am #

    You lose, not because I say so, but because the law of the land says so. Your “facts” are fog and your arguments are smoke. If you refuse to acknowledge that, then you’re opressed by delusions, and my only response to your over-heated imagination is absurd ridicule. Go, make mouths at molehills and rant at the wind. The future moves forward without you.

    hermitian: ArthurI put up the facts and you put up the nonsense and I lose? Oh! I forgot…that’s how the law works in Obamanation.

  107. avatar
    misha February 6, 2012 at 9:52 am #

    hermitian: I put up the facts and you put up the nonsense and I lose? Oh! I forgot…that’s how the law works in Obamanation.

    No, that’s how things work in Conservative Land:

    - The Niger uranium forgeries are forged documents initially revealed by Italian Military intelligence. In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

    - Three decades ago, George H.W. Bush decried supply-side economic theories as “voodoo.” Now, Greg Ip of the Economist says, the 2012 GOP field is embracing even older faulty ideas — and Americans could feel the pain.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-republicans-new-voodoo-economics/2011/08/18/gIQAxhyRQJ_story.html

    You have it reversed. Oops.

  108. avatar
    misha February 6, 2012 at 10:02 am #

    hermitian: Oh! I forgot…that’s how the law works in Obamanation.

    That’s how things work in Conservative Land:

    Romney told CNN on Feb. 1 that “I’m not concerned about the very poor”…

    Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s statement that the “very poor” don’t concern him comes at a time when the portion of Americans living in deep poverty is the highest in more than a generation while assistance varies widely and is often inadequate.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/02/03/bloomberg_articlesLYSON51A74E901-LYSSH.DTL

  109. avatar
    hermitian February 6, 2012 at 10:19 am #

    mishaFebruary 6, 2012 at 10:02 am (Quote)#

    hermitian: Oh! I forgot…that’s how the law works in Obamanation.

    That’s how things work in Conservative Land:

    Romney told CNN on Feb. 1 that “I’m not concerned about the very poor”…

    Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s statement that the “very poor” don’t concern him comes at a time when the portion of Americans living in deep poverty is the highest in more than a generation while assistance varies widely and is often inadequate.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/02/03/bloomberg_articlesLYSON51A74E901-LYSSH.DTL

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    More Obot spin.

    Actually what Romney said was that he was not concerned about the poor because they have a safety net and if the net has holes in it then he will fix them. If he were totally unconcerned about the poor then he would not repair the safety net.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  110. avatar
    misha February 6, 2012 at 10:28 am #

    hermitian: More Obot spin.

    Yeah, just like the spin on WMDs in Iraq.

    hermitian: Actually what Romney said was that he was not concerned about the poor because they have a safety net and if the net has holes in it then he will fix them.

    Finish the entire article: “The social safety net has great big holes in it,” said Candy Hill, senior vice president for social policy and government affairs at Catholic Charities USA. “In real time on the ground, we’re seeing exponential increases of people coming to our door for basic needs: emergency financial assistance, food, housing.”

  111. avatar
    misha February 6, 2012 at 10:31 am #

    hermitian: If he were totally unconcerned about the poor then he would not repair the safety net.

    Yeah, just like Raygun did – NOT.

  112. avatar
    y_p_w February 6, 2012 at 11:32 am #

    So I guess hermitian’s message of part [§92F-22] of UIPA wasn’t in the restored backup. Well to head that off before that’s brought up again….

    http://hawaii.gov/oip/uipa.html#92F22

    §92F-22 Exemptions and limitations on individual access. An agency is not required by this part to grant an individual access to personal records, or information in such records:

    (5) Required to be withheld from the individual to whom it pertains by statute or judicial decision or authorized to be so withheld by constitutional or statutory privilege. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1993, c 250, §3]

    Again, this means they can WITHHOLD a record from UIPA release to the person “to whom it pertains” if another law specifies it – not that they can extend UIPA for those in the §338-18 categories of those with a “tangible interest”.

99999 00000
?????????