I can’t stand to listen to the stuff, except in small bits, so I’m relying on Birther Report for the story.
Apparently Mike Zullo appeared on the Carl Gallups Freedom Friday show today and announced proof: “IronClad And Can Never Be Refuted.” Well, that’s refreshing, because I am getting pretty tired of their usual stuff that comes clad in a wrapper labeled “imitation pasteurized process cheese food.”
Birthers don’t play well with others
Some factionalism appears among the birthers, according to BR:
Zullo also denounced Doug Vogt’s assertions regarding the purported Obama birth certificate forger
Vogt’s identification of the “forger” in sealed court papers, and unsealed lips on talk radio abetted by unredacted web posts from Orly Taitz, is of course pure nonsense (not to be confused with imitation process nonsense).
The conflict gets more serious when Vogt and Zullo contradict each the other in affidavits filed in court. Here’s Vogt first in his Seattle affidavit:
When a birth certificate comes in from a hospital or clinic, the registrar much check that there are no cross outs, all the fields have been filled out, the mother and doctor have both signed and dated the form using black indelible ink. The registrar then stamps the certificate with a date stamp and then uses a Bates numbering machine to print the unique certificate number on the upper right hand comer of the form. Finally the registrar signs the form.
We observe that Hawaiian birth certificates are signed all through the month, usually just a few days after birth, so by implication (according to Vogt) certificates are stamped all through the month. Now contrast what Vogt avers to Zullo’s version that appears in his own affidavit filed in the case of McInnish v. Chapman now before the Alabama Supreme Court:
The serial number shown on the image of the certificate, which purports on its face to have been imposed on the form with an automated sequential numbering stamp, is 61-10641. Investigators learned at that time, batches of birth certificates were collected monthly, ordered by date and time of birth, and then sequentially number-stamped in a special room by a single clerk trained for the purpose, to minimize numbering errors.
So which is it: numbering daily in order of registration, or numbering in birth order sequence in batches at the end of the month? Vogt appeals to his reading of Hawaiian law and federal regulations. Zullo claims an investigation. Which is right? Neither of them is right. The known certificates make it clear that the main sorting of the monthly batch is alphabetic (and possibly a high-level sort on birth facility before). The latest known August 1961 certificate has the lowest certificate number (and the child’s last name begins with “A”). In order to try to make Obama’s certificate appear out of order both Vogt and Zullo make up inconsistent stories, neither of which fits the facts.