Reed Hayes is a professional document examiner from Hawaii, and to my knowledge the only person in his profession to conclude that Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate is a fake. Despite the fact that his report has never been published, reliable sources confirm that Hayes has described the Obama certificate as a forgery (despite repeated verifications of its contents by the State of Hawaii). The reason for keeping the 40 page report under wraps is unknown, but we do know that Mike Zullo is the one who owns the report, and the one that has prevented its publication for over two years.
Now, in a seemingly unrelated lawsuit in Arizona, Melendres v. Arpaio, a subpoena from the ACLU to Mike Zullo requests the delivery of documents that this writer believes include the Reed Hayes report. Readers may draw their own conclusion from reading the subpoena themselves.
The key section of the subpoena that I believe covers the Reed Hayes report appears on page 14, and reads:
Copies, to be provided in native format with metadata, of all emails, text messages, or other written communications, including any attachments and metadata, and including communications and DOCUMENTS sent to or from personal email accounts such as email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, and emails and text messages sent using personal smartphones, tablets or other communications devices or MCSO-provided devices, sent to or from YOU, Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Deputy Sheridan, Brian Mackiewicz, Dennis Montgomery a/k/a David Webb, Retired Executive Chief Brian Sands, any employee of Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, or any member of the Cold Case Posse, from December 23, 2011 through the present, that mention or relate to:
(c) any investigation conducted by Sheriff Arpaio or MCSO or agents of Sheriff Arpaio or MCSO, or on Sheriff Arpaio’s or MCSO’s behalf, of Judge Snow or of any judge or elected official, and/or their family members and/or their associates.
It would seem to me that the Reed Hayes report was certainly part of a written communication; it was to Mike Zullo; and it involved the investigation of an elected official (i.e., Barack Obama) on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio. Indeed, Zullo’s entire investigation of Obama’s birth certificate would seem to be within the scope of this subpoena!
Some might challenge the relevance of the subpoena of Obama investigation records to the Melendres affair; however, it goes to a pattern of behavior. As one said to me, it goes to a pattern of behavior of speculative investigations, accepting woefully inadequate information in an investigation, devoting MCSO resources to speculative nonsense instead of compliance with court orders. and investigating enemies.
Of course those on the opposite side of the birther isle want to see the Reed Hayes report in order to confirm or debunk it. It’s a matter of interest how Reed Hayes came to his conclusion and what methodology he employed. Based on hints from Mike Zullo, it appears that at least part of the report is an endorsement of material previous published by Mike Zullo on the PDF, rather than a handwriting analysis. The following is from Mike Zullo’s affidavit (quoting the Hayes report) presented in the McInnish v. Chapman appeal in Alabama:
“…based on my observations and findings, it is clear that Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate,but a digitally manufactured documented created by utilizing material from various sources.”
If indeed Hayes just buys into prior Zullo material, then it has already been debunked.
For many months I checked the Reed Hayes web site to see if there was anything on Barack Obama’s birth certificate (after a report that Hayes intended to write something on it). I finally gave up. The April 11, 2015, archive of ReedWrite.com does not contain the page, but it is there now. So here is what Hayes says about his investigation into Obama’s birth certificate. (I asked archive.org to save this page today.)
Here are some items of interest:
- Zullo approached Hayes in November, 2012
- Hayes’ examination is based solely on the PDF, not the press photos of the document
- Hayes denies ever saying he was 100% certain of anything
- Hayes has never been an expert witness for the Perkins Coe law firm, although he did work for one of their attorneys in the 90’s.
- Hayes is not a registered Democrat.
What little can be gleaned from the Hayes web page suggests that he based his conclusions on the electronic artifacts in the PDF file, many if not all of which have been reproduced scanning real documents with a Xerox machine.
The ACLU subpoena has been modified not to include the period between December 23, 2011 and August 31, 2013. This would seem to exclude the Hayes report.