Main Menu

Debunking Vogt’s sealed affidavit–Part 2

We resume examining Douglas Vogt’s formerly sealed affidavit that accuses 5 individuals, including yours truly, of colluding to forge Obama’s birth certificate. (Part 1 is here.)

Section 40 shifts gears, introducing a trip by Orly Taitz to Hawaii where Taitz met two of Vogt’s putative forgers of Obama’s birth certificate, Miki Booth and her friend (who is named in the sealed affidavit, but which I am not mentioning for the purposes of this article). He thinks this meeting was an attempt to spy on Orly Taitz, but provides no evidence of it.

In Section 41 Vogt claims to have seen the originals of these Hawaiian documents provided to Jerome Corsi from the two alleged Hawaiian conspirators and has high-resolution copies of them.

In section 42, Vogt seems to be channeling an old movie I once saw, claiming that forgers, out of pride, leave a small mark, a flaw in their work. “They can’t help themselves” says Vogt. Vogt provides no citations from the literature.

Sections 43-44 invoke Vogt’s imagination of what was in his putative forgers minds, but nothing to debunk.

In Section 45, Vogt invokes the 25-day number error as fact, when the error is actually in Vogt’s understanding of how certificates are numbered, as shown in Part 1. Vogt claims collusion. I claim incompetence on Vogt’s part.

In Section 46 Vogt claims that he convinced Mike Zullo that his version of certificate numbering was correct. Vogt doesn’t say when that occurred, but in fact Zullo’s version in his own affidavit doesn’t square with what Vogt says. I have that documented in my article, “Zullo v. Vogt.”

Section 47-53 is probably one of the most bizarre collections of  dots ever connected. Vogt claims that the forger encoded her maiden name in a forged birth certificate by putting a smiley face on the “A” of Alvin, making a tiny mark over the “n” of “Alvin”, smudging the “H” in the word “THE” in the registrar’s stamp that at low resolution looks a bit like an “X,” the letter “E” just because it’s next to the “H” I guess and the pointing to the letter “e” from the word “Male,” which ,because the photocopy of the certificate from a book distorts characters at the binding, l00ks curved. Scramble them up, and voila, the forger’s maiden name.

Section 54 says that the certificates Vogt calls forgeries are not “squared off.” He reasonably says that the forms from a commercial printer would be square. What he fails to appreciate is that it is very difficult to put a piece of paper in a typewriter perfectly square, and it is difficult to photocopy something from a book perfectly square. Vogt observes that parts of the page fit his grid better than others. There’s no reason for a forgery to be that way, but Vogt calls it a mark of forgery anyway.

In Section 55 one cannot tell exactly what Vogt is doing, but we do observe in the Obama certificate some distortion due to the curved binding of the book from which it is copied that is stronger at the top of the form than at the bottom. This is normal copying from a book.

In Section  56 we’re back at letter spacing, where Vogt claims “A typewriter will place letters in exactly the same location every time.” That’s not actually true if the typewriter is old and worn, as one typically finds at public agencies. Also if the paper is at all loose, or shifts, spacing can change. There is no scientific testing done, just “this looks funny to me, so it must be fake.”

Sections 57-65 once again invokes a non-existent level of perfection in a typewriter to claim forgery. He also blows up letters beyond their actual resolution and fails to take into account that letters appear larger when they struck harder, or smaller when the ribbon is worn. Without controlling for variables like these, any analysis is worthless. Ironically, Vogt displays his bias when he says:

There has been some comment by a typewriter repairman that a worn-out typewriter would cause letters to be haphazardly placed on the paper each time—of course he never proved his statement.

So Vogt rejects an expert opinion because it isn’t proven, substituting his own inexpert opinion, that he never proves.

Section 66 is weird. Vogt shows an image of an obviously up-sloping date stamp and declares it identical in slope to an obviously down-sloping date stamp. Maybe it has something to do with the curved images in the reproduction of the Supreme Court book, but it certainly doesn’t look the way Vogt says. Here, you can look at it:

image

In section 68 Vogt  claims that multiple typefaces were used on his putative forged certificates. I frankly don’t see it, and Vogt has never identified what these different typefaces are.

In section 69 Vogt shows what appears to me to be two identical type impressions, only he calls one bent and one straight. Both are magnified beyond the size of the original. He doesn’t account for photocopying variation and the ribbon condition. That is, there is no science here, only confirmation bias.

Section 72-73 observes that some of the type on two putative forgeries have letters that start in about the same place (within 4 points). Four points variation is not something I would call “exact same place.” He attributes it to the “style the forger used” rather than the much more mundane “style the hospital typist used.”

Section 74 goes back to the registrar’s stamp, noting that one side of the stamp appears bigger than the other. Why would a forger do that? A rubber stamp, however, when pressed harder on one side than the other (as obviously the case here) does appear bigger on the heavy side.

Section 75-76 moves from finding grims in tea leaves to circumstances. Vogt finds a connection between Obama and the putative forger because her father was a member of a union that a family friend of the Obama’s wrote for. That claim isn’t documented, while it could be true, but that’s a pretty tenuous connection. He might as well said that she liked ice cream, and Obama worked at Baskin Robbins.

Section 77-85 Vogt says that he sent Onaka copies of various registrar stamp images and asked him whether they are genuine. Onaka didn’t reply. Vogt explains variability in the stamps (and they are distinctly different stamps) not to multiple physical stamps, but to give Onaka plausible deniability. No, I don’t get it either. Vogt says:

You must ask yourself: Why did the forger incorporate errors into the registrar stamp every time? The only answer I can dome to is plausible deniability on the part of the Registrar. He could always say that it was not his registrar’s stamp and he didn’t certify the birth certificate. The forger and the Registrar have a working relationship.” [Relationship because Onaka allowed the alleged forger to get a copy of her son’s long form at a time when it required a waiver from the registrar was required to get that format issued. One notes that others have also obtained a long form in the time frame 2001 – 2011.]

The huge fallacy in the plausible deniability argument is that Dr. Onaka has repeatedly verified the contents of the Obama long form certificate in official documents. He’s affirming, not denying. This is also confusing to use something that someone other than Onaka allegedly did as evidence of something he intended.

Section 86 returns to the numbering sequence claims, that I addressed already in Part 1.

Section 87 deals with a copy of Obama’s birth certificate that attorney Scott Tepper sent to Dr. Onaka for verification as part of the litigation in Taitz v. Democrat Party of  Mississippi. Because Onaka verified the information on the birth certificate to Tepper, Vogt concludes that Onaka is in collusion with the forgers, since he didn’t assert forgery. Vogt also makes a reference to an “unsharp mask” that he thinks the forger used, but that’s for later.

Section 88 repeats the inept financial claims made against the late Loretta Fuddy. Fuddy did some refinancing to consolidate debt, and Vogt mistakenly believes that new money appeared on her financial disclosure. That’s covered in Part 1 of this article with links to that debunking.

And except for a legal remark in Sections 89-90, that’s it.

It is difficult to debunk some of Vogt’s stuff simply because he claims to see things that others don’t see. How do I debunk someone saying “that cloud looks like a poodle”? The thing that invalidates much of Vogt’s affidavit is simply the absence of any recognized methodology, the absence of controls, and the selective rejection of evidence that doesn’t fit his preconceived notions. Some things seem so facially absurd that all I did was to fairly condense and paraphrase it (the original is 48 pages). Maybe I used some sarcasm and ridicule, but I think the facts are presented fairly and what Vogt claims is ridiculous. In any case, you can read the original for Vogt’s presentation.

Probably the person most damaged by this disclosure is Miki Booth, someone who is a birther herself and up until Vogt’s affidavit a respected activist member of that community. Some people believed Vogt, and have turned against her. She told the Post & Email publisher Sharon Rondeau:

I know what the truth is, so I don’t have to come out and say, “I didn’t do it.” I keep reading all of the comments that are out there, and it’s amazing how people have turned against me. People say, “Doug Vogt lays out a very concise case, and it really looks good,” and that he’s proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that we’re the culprits. In a way, it’s comical and makes me laugh, because they’ve named Dr. Conspiracy, who has come out and said that it’s not Miki Booth and Johanna Ah’nee. He’s made several comments to that effect.

Miki Booth has good insight into Douglas Vogt, and puts it better than I could:

He’s terribly misguided and apparently suffers from some kind of tunnel vision so that he can’t look in any other direction and see that this is just totally wrong.  He’s focused on these tiny little anomalies that are matched in the birth certificates I provided to come to the conclusion that they must all be forgeries.

The genesis of this article is a rather heated email exchange that I am having with Doug Vogt, in which he makes the claim that he figured out how the forger made the Obama certificate PDF. He claimed that the sealed affidavit would partly explain how he accomplished that. I asked for a copy of his PDF, but received no response. I got to the end of the sealed affidavit and only got the reference to the “unsharp” mask, an operator in Photoshop that reportedly creates halos around letters. A Xerox WorkCentre also creates halos and that’s what it appears that the White House used to create a PDF from Obama’s legitimate, state verified, birth certificate.

There is no forgery.

Update:

Vogt’s exercise in making his own forgery is described in his public affidavit rather than the sealed portion. It is discussed in Frank Arduini’s debunking of that document, “20 Shades of Vogt: Digital Document Forensics for Amateurs.” Arduini wrote:

What they then go on to do with that mock-up is just another exercise in egregious confirmation bias. On one hand, when they are able to recreate a detail of the birth certificate, they conclude that this must be evidence of forgery. But then on the other hand, when they are not  able to recreate a detail of the birth certificate, they conclude that this also must be evidence of forgery.

318 Responses to Debunking Vogt’s sealed affidavit–Part 2

  1. avatar
    Thrifty August 13, 2016 at 5:52 pm #

    I didn’t read your article yet, but one question springs to mind after the first paragraph. Why would you need 5 people to forge a birth certificate? Lucas Smith forged one all by himself.

  2. avatar
    RanTalbott August 13, 2016 at 10:42 pm #

    Thrifty: Lucas Smith forged one all by himself.

    Ah, but his was caught immediately. But Obama’s fooled everyone except the Sup3r Dup3r G3n1us3s like Vogt, because he used a team, with real experts like Doc.

    You know what they say: It takes a village to raise a child’s birth certificate.

  3. avatar
    trader jack August 14, 2016 at 4:38 am #

    “The huge fallacy in the plausible deniability argument is that Dr. Onaka has repeatedly verified the contents of the Obama long form certificate in official documents.”

    As Dr. Onaka certified the LFBC, and It was issued to the President’s staff, do you really think that it would say that it does not contain the information that is on the birth record?

    Or do you think he would be honest enough to admit that it did not contain the actual information on the birth record?

    asking you to verify the debunking that you did in the article is the same sort of thing.

    “In Section 56 we’re back at letter spacing, where Vogt claims a typewriter will place letters in exactly the same location every time.” That’s not actually true if the typewriter is old and worn, as one typically finds at public agencies. Also if the paper is at all loose, or shifts, spacing can change. There is no scientific testing done, just “this looks funny to me, so it must be fake.”

    Now this is interesting to me, as I worked in a public agency for 30 years and we never had old, worn out typewriters.
    But, perhaps, it might be that a hospital (public agency?) might have same, but , again, most heavy users of typewriters are not in the birthing center of a hospital.

    And to use the fact , or suggestion that the platen was so loose that the paper would shift around is almost like what you claim Vogt does in his report.
    And, as an aside, I could type 45 words a minute on a standard mill.

  4. avatar
    scott e August 14, 2016 at 9:08 am #

    i just read frank’s treatise again, takes me back to a time. still doesn’t feel right, can’t shake the obot feeling.

  5. avatar
    Reality Check August 14, 2016 at 10:16 am #

    At one time I looked at every published Hawaiian birth certificate I could find from the same era and found letter spacing issues in every one of them. I think it is just something that happened with typewriters and natural variation in the timing of the movement of the carriage and the type hammers. Also there can be a slight variation in the angle of the bend on the type hammers over time

    I thought I had detected a pattern in letter spacing oddities that was similar in all the birth certificates prepared at Kapi’olani Hospital in the early 1960’s that would show that the same typewriter was used to type most or all of them. I even prepared a draft article with some examples but I decided not to publish it because of the poor quality of the images available and the fact that certain letter combinations cause optical illusions and make it appear the spacing is off when it really isn’t.

    Reading too much into poor images is one of the mistakes both Paul Irey and Doug Vogt made. Both of them tried to claim that the text of the LFBC on the left margin doesn’t follow the page curvature. I debunked this claim back in 2011 in an article on my old Blogspot blog:

    Paul Irey and Doug Vogt’s Incredible Claims

    trader jack: Now this is interesting to me, as I worked in a public agency for 30 years and we never had old, worn out typewriters.
    But, perhaps, it might be that a hospital (public agency?) might have same, but , again, most heavy users of typewriters are not in the birthing center of a hospital.

  6. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 14, 2016 at 11:58 am #

    “The genesis of this article is a rather heated email exchange that I am having with Doug Vogt, in which he makes the claim that he figured out how the forger made the Obama certificate PDF.”

    Remarkable that Vogt continues with this farce. He owes you (and others) a public apology for his slanderous nonsense.

    p.s. Looking at his affidavit, I noticed a lot of smudges. Some of the smudges kinda look like letters. Scramble them up, and voila, it says “Paul is dead”.

  7. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund August 14, 2016 at 12:51 pm #

    trader jack: “The huge fallacy in the plausible deniability argument is that Dr. Onaka has repeatedly verified the contents of the Obama long form certificate in official documents.”

    As Dr. Onaka certified the LFBC, and It was issued to the President’s staff, do you really think that it would say that it does not contain the information that is on the birth record?

    You do realize that you just made Doc’s point, right? If Onaka was using bad signatures in order to create a basis for plausible deniability, affirming the contents of the LFBC in official documents would destroy any basis for plausible deniability. Not to mention the fact that HDoH put up a copy of the correspondence leading to the distribution of the LFBC.

  8. avatar
    Reality Check August 14, 2016 at 1:51 pm #

    The genesis of this article is a rather heated email exchange that I am having with Doug Vogt, in which he makes the claim that he figured out how the forger made the Obama certificate PDF. He claimed that the sealed affidavit would partly explain how he accomplished that. I asked for a copy of his PDF, but received no response. I got to the end of the sealed affidavit and only got the reference to the “unsharp” mask, an operator in Photoshop that reportedly creates halos around letters. A Xerox WorkCentre also creates halos and that’s what it appears that the White House used to create a PDF from Obama’s legitimate, state verified, birth certificate.

    The other problem that Vogt has is that he can come up with any kooky theory he wants to explain how the PDF was supposedly created but that doesn’t explain where the AP JPG image came from. Even someone with no skill at all can see that the PDF was not the original source for J. Scott Applewhite’s photo. This was one of several points in John Woodman’s book that no Birther has been able to challenge.

  9. avatar
    bob August 14, 2016 at 1:59 pm #

    Why is Vogt e-mailing you? Does he think you are suddenly going to confess?

  10. avatar
    trader jack August 14, 2016 at 2:41 pm #

    The whole problem with this discussion is that you can not prove that the birth certificate is true, nor can it be proved that it is faked.

    the normal way to do this is to challenge the trueness, or fakeness , of the document.

    You can prove that, in your eyes, that the trueness of the document is based upon the certification by the Registrar on the document.

    But you can not disprove the statement of Vogt by claiming that the analysis is in error, on the basis that your have determined, to the satisfaction of yourself, that the claimed errors are caused by the duplication process, until you can prove that the same problems exists in other documents issued by the same agency during the same era of time.

    If you can show that other documents , completed by the birthing center concerned, that were filed with the agency in the same period, you could have evidence that such an occurrence was common for the time and agency and could be sufficient to show that the document’s errors were common on the filed documents.

    It is similar to the discussion about evolution, and may never be solved.

    It is easy to say what could of happened to cause those apparent flaws in the document, but to prove that it actually happened that way would be difficult.

  11. avatar
    scott e August 14, 2016 at 3:15 pm #

    Reality Check: The other problem that Vogt has is that he can come up with any kooky theory he wants to explain how the PDF was supposedly created but that doesn’t explain where the AP JPG image came from. Even someone with no skill at all can see that the PDF was not the original source for J. Scott Applewhite’s photo. This was one of several points in John Woodman’s book that no Birther has been able to challenge.

    that was the “high resolution copy”.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2016 at 3:48 pm #

    That’s not something I want to get into in detail except to say that a third party is sending emails copied to a number of individuals including me, Vogt and some other birther names you might know.

    It ended up with Vogt and I exchanging an email and the process turning into a pissing match. The fellow has always irritated me, something you can see in the articles I wrote when he first appeared on the scene. One of the things he said was that his sealed affidavit contained strong proof of certain things that I had never answered. So I took it upon myself to answer them to the extent possible.

    bob: Why is Vogt e-mailing you? Does he think you are suddenly going to confess?

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2016 at 3:53 pm #

    You missed the point.

    It has been demonstrated that other old documents from the same period and the same source DO contain the same artifacts as we see on the Obama certificate. It’s already been done in huge detail.

    I can’t help it if Vogt summarily declared all the other documents to be forgeries too.

    trader jack: But you can not disprove the statement of Vogt by claiming that the analysis is in error, on the basis that your have determined, to the satisfaction of yourself, that the claimed errors are caused by the duplication process, until you can prove that the same problems exists in other documents issued by the same agency during the same era of time.

  14. avatar
    Joey August 14, 2016 at 4:12 pm #

    trader jack:
    “The huge fallacy in the plausible deniability argument is that Dr. Onaka has repeatedly verified the contents of the Obama long form certificate in official documents.”

    As Dr. Onaka certified the LFBC, and It was issued to the President’s staff, do you really think that it would say that it does not contain the information that is on the birth record?
    Or do you think he would be honest enough to admit that it did not contain the actual information onthe birth record?
    Asking to verify the debunking that you didin the article is the same sort of thing.
    “In Section56 we’re back at letter spacing, where Vogt claims a typewriter will place letters in exactly the same location every time.” That’s not actually true if the typewriter is old and worn, as one typically finds at public agencies. Also if the paper is at all loose, or shifts, spacing can change. There is no scientific testing done, just “this looks funny to me, so it must be fake.”
    Now this is interesting to me, as I worked in a public agency for 30 years and we never had old, worn out typewriters.
    But, perhaps, it might be that a hospital (public agency?) mighthave same, but , again, mostheavy users of typewriters are not in the birthing center of a hospital.
    Andto use the fact , orsuggestion that the platen was so loose that the paper would shift around is almost like what you claim Vogt does in his report.
    And, as an aside, I could type 45 words a minute on a standard mill.

    Dr. Onaka would have no idea if and when the original, vault edition might be court ordered to be released for inspection or subpoenaed by a Congressional Committee. I doubt that he would risk a contempt or obstruction criminal charge by verifying something that was not verifiable. Additionally, years before he issued any Certified Letters of Verification, Dr. Onaka and the Hawaii Health Director had examined the original document (back in October, 2008).

  15. avatar
    Rickey August 14, 2016 at 4:17 pm #

    trader jack:
    The whole problem with this discussion is that you can not prove that the birth certificate is true, nor can it be proved that it is faked.

    The birth certificate is prima facie evidence in any court of law that the facts contained therein are true.

    If you want to challenge the veracity of the birth certificate, come up with evidence that any fact in it is not true. Unless you can do that, you are just pissing in the wind.

    It is similar to the discussion about evolution, and may never be solved.

    Some people will never be convinced that the earth is not flat. There is no scientific controversy regarding evolution. The naysayers are driven by religious beliefs, not science, and birthers are driven by hatred of President Obama.

  16. avatar
    trader jack August 14, 2016 at 4:56 pm #


    Definition of prima facie evidence

    : “evidence sufficient in law to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question unless rebutted”

    It is amazing that people can read something and not understand the meaning of the words.

    Now, take this little sentence, and try to understand what the last two words mean!

    If something is capable of being rebutted, it must not be 100% true, unless you believe otherwise!

    http://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/2010/division4/title33/chapter626/626-1-305

    “Rule 305 Prima facie evidence. A statute providing that a fact or a group of facts is prima facie evidence of another fact establishes a presumption within the meaning of this article unless the statute expressly provides that such prima facie evidence is conclusive. [L 1980, c 164, pt of §1]

    RULE 305 COMMENTARY

    The purpose of this rule is to indicate the construction that should be given to the large number of provisions, scattered throughout the Hawaii Rev. Stat., which state that a fact, or a group of facts, is “prima facie” evidence of another fact. See, e.g., Hawaii Rev. Stat. §560:1-107(1) (1976), making a certified or authenticated copy of a death certificate prima facie evidence of the fact, place, date and time of death and the identity of the decedent; §622-31, making a written finding of “presumed death” prima facie evidence of the death of the person named; §572-13(c), making a certified copy of a certificate of marriage prima facie evidence of the fact of such marriage; §575-2, making the absence of a husband or wife for six continuous months prima facie evidence of desertion; §634-22, making a record or affidavit of process prima facie evidence of all that it contains.
    —–
    A few statutes establish either a conclusive presumption, e.g., Hawaii Rev. Stat. §76-51 (1976), or irrebuttable prima facie evidence, e.g., Hawaii Rev. Stat. §480-22(a) (1976). These are conclusive presumptions as defined in Rule 301(2)(A) and, as such, they are not presumptions within the intent of this article and are expressly excluded from the scope of this rule.”
    .

  17. avatar
    trader jack August 14, 2016 at 5:20 pm #

    Reality Check: At one time I looked at every published Hawaiian birth certificate I could find from the same era and found letter spacing issues in every one of them. I think it is just something that happened with typewriters and natural variation in the timing of the movement of the carriage and the type hammers. Also there can be a slight variation in the angle of the bend on the type hammers over time
    I thought I had detected a pattern in letter spacing oddities that was similar in all the birth certificates prepared at Kapi’olani Hospital in the early 1960’s that would show that the same typewriter was used to type most or all of them. I even prepared a draft article with some examples but I decided not to publish it because of the poor quality of the images available and the fact that certain letter combinations cause optical illusions and make it appear the spacing is off when it really isn’t.

    and I agree with you that mechanical typewriters have variations in the timing, shift, and spacing, including jamming of the printing levers. But, those , at least some of them , will not be the same in all typed information from that typewriter.

    But, if you examine Nordyke bc’s do they contain the same errors that the Presidents does. noting , of course, that their copies were from 1960’s and not 2008?

    Of course if you got their copies today, you might find that they had the same assumed defects as the BHO document.

    I didn’t know that there were many copies of bcs from the Kapiolani hospital available on the internet.

    I have a number of nieces and nephews that were born there before and after the fact of discussion, but I hesitate to ask for copies of their bcs.

    I think it is always important when investigating an action that you also report your failures to find evidence confirming one side or the other.

    I would like to have seen more indications of Onaka’s signature with , or without, without , the artifact in the signature.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2016 at 5:47 pm #

    That means the burden of proof is on the one who would challenge the evidence. The kind of arguments the birthers make are not admissible in court because they couldn’t stand a Daubert challenge.

    trader jack: : “evidence sufficient in law to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question unless rebutted”

  19. avatar
    bob August 14, 2016 at 6:24 pm #

    trader jack: “evidence sufficient in law to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question unless rebutted”
    It is amazing that people can read something and not understand the meaning of the words.

    Oh, the irony.

    There is no evidence (your (or Vogt’s) speculation is not evidence) to rebut the legally established facts articulated in President Obama’s birth certificate.

  20. avatar
    Reality Check August 14, 2016 at 6:27 pm #

    I looked at four birth certificates from Kapi’olani. Obama, the friend of Miki Booth and the two Nordyke twins. In all four certificates the lower case “i” tends to be shifted to the left.

  21. avatar
    trader jack August 14, 2016 at 7:34 pm #

    bob: Oh, the irony.

    There is no evidence (your (or Vogt’s) speculation is not evidence) to rebut the legally established facts articulated in President Obama’s birth certificate.

    I am sorry, but I do believe that information provided to a bona-fide court is evidence whether it is true or false.

    I have not speculated as to Vogt’s evidence, as I have not seen it

    Reality Check:
    I looked at four birth certificates from Kapi’olani. Obama, the friend of Miki Booth and the two Nordyke twins. In all four certificates the lower case “i” tends to be shifted to the left.

    Thank you, I assume that you are stating that they are shifted to the left, mean tilted to the left and not mis-spaced to the left, and I agree that would be hard to discern due to the limited width of the subject letter

    As I have not seen the birth certificate at hand, I can only think about the mechanical information present on the item for consideration of the validity of the document.

    the information on the document can not be verified by non-holders of the document

    Kind of looking at a forged dollar bill, in a way.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2016 at 7:55 pm #

    Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, there are safeguards against junk science from being admitted in a court. Someone cannot testify as an expert unless they really are an expert in the area where they are testifying. An opinion has to be based on a recognized methodology.

    This is the sort of barrier that Judge Malihi raised against Orly Taitz’s witnesses in Georgia. He rejected all of that testimony because Taitz had failed to qualify the witnesses (i.e. demonstrate that they were experts). In an administrative law court, inexpert witnesses can testify and the judge decides what to accept. In a jury trial, such testimony of an unqualified witness is not allowed. The jury doesn’t decide such questions; the judge does.

    trader jack: I am sorry, but I do believe that information provided to a bona-fide court is evidence whether it is true or false.

  23. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 14, 2016 at 8:27 pm #

    Dougie is a senile buffoon. He bases his entire fantasy house of cards on his ignorant amateurish and severely uneducated “analysis” of a multi-generation copy. He is a disingenuous fool. He has NOTHING to bring to this discussion but his bias, his overwhelming ignorance, and his desire for notoriety. The actual birth affidavit has been seen by various members of the HDH staff over the years, and Dr Onaka is not the only one to have looked at it. He has however issued at least two certified copies and verified the correctness of the copies issued repeatedly, A certified birth certificate, or whatever you want to call it, is BY LAW, a self proving self verifying document. Unless and until someone actually comes up with evidence and not just errant speculation the document will stand as valid. SO GET OVER IT, and quit wasting breath.

  24. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund August 14, 2016 at 8:56 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I looked at four birth certificates from Kapi’olani. Obama, the friend of Miki Booth and the two Nordyke twins. In all four certificates the lower case “i” tends to be shifted to the left.

    Something else I noted in those certificates: the letter after a hand switch tends to be left-shifted (indicating that the second letter was depressed while the carriage was still moving). As I recall, it was more prominent for one hand than the other.

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2016 at 8:57 pm #

    He argued that I am a Marxist because I support Obama, who he says is a Marxist. He could not be persuaded otherwise.

    Notorial Dissent: He has NOTHING to bring to this discussion but his bias, his overwhelming ignorance, and his desire for notoriety.

  26. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 14, 2016 at 9:04 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: He argued that I am a Marxist because I support Obama, who he says is a Marxist.

    —-
    How very McCarthyesque of him.

  27. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 14, 2016 at 11:24 pm #

    He also seems to think teh copy of a copy of a copy of the birth certificate is the birth certificate, in other words, his thinking has nothing to do with reality. To quote myself, .“Dougie is a senile buffoon.”

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    He argued that I am a Marxist because I support Obama, who he says is a Marxist. He could not be persuaded otherwise.

  28. avatar
    Rickey August 15, 2016 at 12:14 am #

    trader jack:

    Definition of prima facie evidence

    “evidence sufficient in law to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question unless rebutted”

    I know what the definition of prima facie evidence is. However, you don’t seem to know what rebuttal evidence is. Simply expressing doubts about the authenticity of a certified document is not a rebuttal. You need to introduce admissible evidence which proves that the document is not authentic. To prove that a birth certificate is not authentic when a state agency has certified that it is authentic – particularly one where neither the doctor nor the mother is still alive – you would have to produce admissible evidence that at least some fact noted in the birth certificate is false. How can you do that? Can you prove that Obama was not born in Honolulu? Can you prove that Stanley Dunham Obama was not his mother? Can you prove that Dr. Sinclair did not deliver him? Can you prove that he was not born on August 4, 1961? You’re certainly not going to do it by sitting at your computer and whining that a birth certificate doesn’t prove the facts of a birth.

    As Doc has pointed out, nothing which has been argued by Irey, Vogt, et al. is admissible because none of them could qualify as an expert. The exception might be Reed Hayes, although even he would have trouble qualifying because he does not appear to have any experience regarding the ways in which a document is processed when it is converted to a pdf. And I doubt that Hayes would stand by his report to Zullo after he has been educated about how a Xerox WorkCentre creates the exact “anomalies” he expressed concerns about.

    Not all testimony is admissible. Hearsay, for example, is generally inadmissible. An expert must be qualified before giving expert testimony. Medical records which are not certified cannot be entered into evidence. And the list goes on.

  29. avatar
    bob August 15, 2016 at 1:33 am #

    trader jack: I am sorry, but I do believe that information provided to a bona-fide court is evidence whether it is true or false.

    Your beliefs are, again, incorrect: Presenting information to a court and a court accepting information as evidence are two very different acts. As aptly shown by Doc’s example in what happened in Malihi’s court. The same thing also happened when Irey attempted to testify in Indiana in 2012.

    * * *

    Rickey: The exception might be Reed Hayes, although even he would have trouble qualifying because he does not appear to have any experience regarding the ways in which a document is processed when it is converted to a pdf.

    Of course, Hayes’ report remains locked under Zullo’s key. Almost everyone touting Hayes’ report as evidence has never read it — yet again, birthers have no admissible evidence, but rather rely on only rank speculation and belief. Which is not admissible in court.

  30. avatar
    Reality Check August 15, 2016 at 8:07 am #

    I had an email exchange with Vogt a few years ago that went pretty much the same way as yours. When I picked apart his analysis point by point and he had no answers he resorted to “why are you supporting a communist?”

    Vogt and Irey both use backward logic (or Birther logic). Irey essentially admitted that when he said he knew the Obama LFBC was a forgery before he even looked at it. They start from the conclusion and work backwards. Since they know Obama is a communist therefore his birth certificate is a forgery. Since Miki Booth friend’s birth certificate supports the authenticity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate therefore she is one of the forgers. All the known early 1960’s birth certificates support the authenticity of Obama’s therefore they are all forgeries. A good helping of conspiracy is always tossed in for good measure.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    He argued that I am a Marxist because I support Obama, who he says is a Marxist. He could not be persuaded otherwise.

  31. avatar
    Scientist August 15, 2016 at 8:56 am #

    Reality Check: why are you supporting a communist?”

    Why are birthers like Trump supporting a former-KGB agent?

    Here’s a challenge for Vogt-analyze Trump’s phony b.c. Prove to me it isn’t a KGB forgery. The $100 prize stands.

  32. avatar
    Keith August 15, 2016 at 9:11 am #

    trader jack: I am sorry, but I do believe that information provided to a bona-fide court is evidence whether it is true or false.

    I’m sorry you have that false belief too.

    Have you never seen “Perry Mason” and the discussions about what information can and cannot be ‘accepted into evidence’? Or just about every other courtroom drama?

    Attorney 1: “I move that exhibit ‘D’ be accepted into evidence”
    Opposing: “I object, your honor”
    Judge: “Explain why this exhibit should be accepted please”
    Attorney 1: “yada yada yada”
    Judge: OK, sounds relevant to me, the Clerk will record it as evidence.

    So you see, there can be lots of information (exhibits) provided to a court. Not all exhibits are admissible as relevant evidence.

  33. avatar
    Scientist August 15, 2016 at 9:51 am #

    As far as Obama being a communist, I seem to recall he had the government buy shares in GM when they were cheap and sell them when they went up. Buy low, sell high; if that isn’t capitalism, I don’t know what is. Similar for AIG and Citi, though some of that was under Bush, which I guess makes him a commie too according to Vogt.

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 15, 2016 at 9:53 am #

    Any number of birthers believe that the Reed Hayes report was published, and even a few claim to have read it although they cannot say when and where.

    bob: Of course, Hayes’ report remains locked under Zullo’s key. Almost everyone touting Hayes’ report as evidence has never read it — yet again, birthers have no admissible evidence, but rather rely on only rank speculation and belief. Which is not admissible in court.

  35. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 15, 2016 at 10:21 am #

    Scientist:
    Reality Check: why are you supporting a communist?”

    Scientist: Why are birthers like Trump supporting a former-KGB agent?

    Here’s a challenge for Vogt-analyze Trump’s phony b.c. Prove to me it isn’t a KGB forgery. The $100 prize stands.

    —-

    Thank you. Trump, his campaign staff, his advisers, and his associates are up to their eyeballs in old-school-Russians.

    And notice how US states filled with Trump supporters are called Red States….. Connect the dots. Here are some more dots. ……………..

    Doug’s name spelled backwards is GUOD — Give Up or Die?!

    How about Irey? Spelled backward, it’s Yeri. Sounds a lot like Yuri to me!

    Was Vogt involved in helping Orly Taitz “immigrate” (infiltrate!) from the Commie-Bloc?

    Is Vogt’s affidavit simply a device for plausible deniability of his own commie guilt?

    People are asking questions, folks. Sad!

  36. avatar
    HistorianDude August 15, 2016 at 10:37 am #

    trader jack:
    The whole problem with this discussion is that you can not prove that the birth certificate is true, nor can it be proved that it is faked.

    Not to get deeply philosophical, but welcome to the human condition. All “proof” is tentative and contingent. We can have greater or lesser confidence, but absolute proof is simply something to which we have no access in the real empirical world.

    This is why we set standards for “proof” that are “good enough.” The standards are different in different situations (for example, the criminal court standard is “beyond reasonable doubt” while the civil court standard is “the preponderance of evidence”). And we long ago set the legal standard of proof for the authenticity of birth certificates and the information they contain.

    Obama’s birth certificate has met them.

    But you can not disprove the statement of Vogt byclaiming that the analysis is in error, on the basis that your have determined, to the satisfaction of yourself, that the claimed errors are caused by the duplication process, until you can prove that the same problems exists in other documents issued by the same agency during the same era of time.

    Now THAT statement is completely false. It is based entirely on the demonstrable falsehood that the “duplication process” that led to the President’s on-line PDF is the same as that used for another document you wish to compare it to. But if it’s not (and it is not) there are different details that will be different as a result.

    Vogt and Irey have failed to even attempt a competent understanding of the processes through which the different certificates we have available to us came to us. Only the shared part of the processes will produce the same details, and where the processes diverge so will certain details. For example, of all the 1961 Hawaiian BCs we have, only the President’s was scanned on a Xerox WorkCentre to create the online PDF. As a result it uniquely bears the artifacts of JBIG2 and MRO compression that caused amateur birther analysts to declare “forgery” in the first place.

    But the bottom line for this series of articles by Doc is actually not whether or not we can prove the birth certificate is real. It is whether or not we can prove Vogt is wrong. And we can do so. Comprehensively. Objectively. Conclusively.

  37. avatar
    HistorianDude August 15, 2016 at 10:47 am #

    trader jack:

    Definition of prima facie evidence

    : “evidence sufficient in law to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question unless rebutted”

    It is amazing that people can read something and not understand the meaning of the words.

    Let no irony go unsmelted.

    “Unless rebutted” means that for the evidence to NOT establish a fact, it actually needs to be rebutted with evidence of equal or superior probative value. And the only evidence of equal or superior probative vale to a sealed and certified birth certificate from a state Department of Health would be either a contradictory birth certificate (also sealed and certified from a similar authority) or non-hearsay testimony from somebody on a position to actually know.

    And no such evidence has ever been presented, thus preserving the President’s birth certificates (both long and short forms) as legal proof of the evidence they contain.

  38. avatar
    HistorianDude August 15, 2016 at 10:52 am #

    Reality Check:
    I looked at four birth certificates from Kapi’olani. Obama, the friend of Miki Booth and the two Nordyke twins. In all four certificates the lower case “i” tends to be shifted to the left.

    Absolutely.

    And as you might recall, I obtained a typewritten “control document” online that was independent of anything to do with this controversy. Detail by detail, the typing “anomalies” declared by Vogt and Irey to be evidence of forgery are, without exception, found on any text that was created with a manual typewrite.

  39. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 15, 2016 at 11:04 am #

    trader jack: It is amazing that people can read something and not understand the meaning of the words.

    Now, take this little sentence, and try to understand what the last two words mean!

    If something is capable of being rebutted, it must not be 100% true, unless you believe otherwise!

    Yes take you for instance who continues to show he doesn’t understand the meaning of words he uses. Thus far no birther has presented anything that could be considered evidence that directly rebuts the Hawaii BC.

  40. avatar
    Crustacean August 15, 2016 at 1:21 pm #

    After reading the Hayes Report, they probably folded it up and slipped it between the pages of their old Civics text book – y’know, the one that says a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Any number of birthers believe that the Reed Hayes report was published, and even a few claim to have read it although they cannot say when and where.

  41. avatar
    trader jack August 15, 2016 at 3:11 pm #

    Oh, for heavens sake,
    The dispute is not about where Obama was born, it is about the production of the LFBC, and the possibility that that document was not properly produced
    actually the damn thing was introduced into trial and the plaintiff lost the case.

    And you folks know that as you refer to it quite constantly.
    there is NO EVIDENCE that Vogt is wrong as like the birthers as no competent court has ruled on it
    there is NO EVDIENCE that Vogt is correct as like the anti-birthers as no competent court has ruled on it.

    the paper document is a paper document about which two different groups dispute the veracity of what the other side says about the paper document.

    Plaintiff states that the document shows signs that the document might be incorrect, and as the issuing agent has the capability and authority to issue documents that are legally issued and certified as being a true copy of the birth record, with the full knowledge that the information on the document, except for the time and place of birth, may not be actually true, we request that the original birth record be obtained from the agency under the direct order of this court which is a court of competent jurisdiction.

    , the publication of the document in the press might have eliminated the HIPPI limitations on the disclosure of private information there appears to be no reasonable reason that the document should not be available to the public at will.

    If you truly believe that the public agencies always tell the truth, may you live happy lives trusting the government.

  42. avatar
    gorefan August 15, 2016 at 5:00 pm #

    HistorianDude: Absolutely.

    And as you might recall, I obtained a typewritten “control document” online that was independent of anything to do with this controversy. Detail by detail, the typing “anomalies” declared by Vogt and Irey to be evidence of forgery are, without exception, found on any text that was created with a manual typewrite.

    Both Nordyke BCs exhibit evidence that the certificates were adjusted after the clerk began typing them. Either to correct a misaligned page or because the data was entered at different times.

  43. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 15, 2016 at 6:00 pm #

    There is ample evidence that Vogt’s methodology is not valid, that he ignored evidence that contradicted him, and that he is completely incompetent. For that reason, whatever he says is no more likely to be right than a stopped clock.

    I court people can testify to their personal knowledge. They are not allowed to testify as to their opinions unless they are qualified.

    trader jack: there is NO EVIDENCE that Vogt is wrong as like the birthers as no competent court has ruled on it

  44. avatar
    Arthur B. August 15, 2016 at 6:19 pm #

    trader jack: Oh, for heavens sake,
    The dispute is not about where Obama was born, it is about the production of the LFBC

    What about the COLB, the so-called “short form”? Do you have any evidence that it is not an authentic Hawaiian state document?

  45. avatar
    Scientist August 15, 2016 at 6:23 pm #

    trader jack: The dispute is not about where Obama was born, it is about the production of the LFBC, and the possibility that that document was not properly produced

    Then who cares…

    To amplify on that, Hawaii says it was. If you show me a signature that claims to be mine and I say, “Yes, that’s mine”, then that ends the discussion. If Hawaii says it’s theirs, then it is, even if it’s written in crayon on the back of a napkin. End of story.

  46. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 15, 2016 at 6:29 pm #

    trader jack: Oh, for heavens sake, The dispute is not about where Obama was born

    Say what?

  47. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 15, 2016 at 7:02 pm #

    I’m old enough to have had to fill out forms with a typewriter. I had to adjust the page all the time.

    Many old forms were designed for handwriting, and typing in the right space was sometimes a compromise. One hopes that Hawaii designed their form better. I don’t have an original full-sized version to test with.

    gorefan: Both Nordyke BCs exhibit evidence that the certificates were adjusted after the clerk began typing them. Either to correct a misaligned page or because the data was entered at different times.

  48. avatar
    Joey August 15, 2016 at 7:26 pm #

    trader jack:
    Oh, for heavens sake,
    The dispute is not about where Obama was born, it is about the production of the LFBC, and the possibility that that document was not properly produced
    actually the damn thing was introduced into trial and the plaintiff lost the case.

    And you folks know that as you refer to it quite constantly.
    there is NO EVIDENCEthat Vogt is wrong as like the birthers as no competent court has ruled on it
    there is NO EVDIENCEthat Vogt is correct as like the anti-birthers as no competent court hasruled on it.

    the paper document is a paper document about which two different groups dispute the veracity of what the other side says about the paper document.

    Plaintiff states that the document shows signs that the document might be incorrect, and as the issuing agent has the capability and authority to issue documents thatare legally issued and certified as being a true copy of the birthrecord, with the full knowledge that the information on the document, except for the time and place of birth, may not be actually true, we request that the original birth record be obtained from the agency under the direct order of thiscourtwhich is a court of competent jurisdiction.

    ,thepublication of the document in the press might have eliminated the HIPPI limitations on the disclosure of private information there appears to be no reasonable reason that the document should not be available to the public at will.

    If you truly believe that the public agencies always tell the truth,may you live happy lives trusting the government.

    Whether a public agency is telling the truth or not is irrelevant.
    A judge’s court order or congressional subpoena issued by a congressional committee chair can be used to bring about production of the original vault edition paper document for purposes of forensic inspection. Failure to produce could result in a contempt citation.

  49. avatar
    Northland10 August 15, 2016 at 7:27 pm #

    trader jack: there is NO EVIDENCE that Vogt is wrong as like the birthers as no competent court has ruled on it

    Here is Vogt’s method:

    1. Johnny has a recent $50 bill and decides it is counterfeit because it does not look like what he thinks it should.
    2. Johnny has never seen a $50 bill so he looks for some $50 bills to compare.
    3. Johnny gets 8 $50 bills and they all have the same features has his original $50 bill.
    4. Johnny declares the 8 $50 bills are also counterfeit.
    5. The Secret Service states that the $50 is not counterfeit.
    6. Johnny states the Secret Service is complicit in the conspiracy to counterfeit the $50 bill.
    7. The director of the Bureau of Engraving and the Treasurer of the United States that the $50 is legitimate, was produced by the Bureau and the serial number matches their records.
    8. Johnny says that the director and Treasurer are involved in the conspiracy to counterfeit.

    If you like this method, then I recommend you start demanding a court rule on the validity of any government checks you get. Don’t cash them until they are proved to be valid. Don’t take the government’s word. They can’t be trusted.

  50. avatar
    Northland10 August 15, 2016 at 7:29 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —

    Say what?

    Yeah.. They forget their original premise from time to time.

  51. avatar
    Arthur B. August 15, 2016 at 9:04 pm #

    Northland10: They forget their original premise from time to time.

    FWIW, Arpaio has taken much the same position — he’s non-committal on Obama’s birthplace but convinced the document’s a fake.

    It strikes me as a silly place to be but hey, they’re birthers.

  52. avatar
    trader jack August 15, 2016 at 11:09 pm #

    Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence

    Evidence is relevant if:

    (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

    (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

    the fact that you don’t think it is relevant is about as useful as anything else about evidence.

    “Relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case. Does the item of evidence tend to prove the matter sought to be proved? Whether the relationship exists depends upon principles evolved by experience or science, applied logically to the situation at hand. James, Relevancy, Probability and the Law, 29 Calif.L.Rev. 689, 696, n. 15 (1941), in Selected Writings on Evidence and Trial 610, 615, n. 15 (Fryer ed. 1957). The rule summarizes this relationship as a “tendency to make the existence” of the fact to be proved “more probable or less probable.” Compare Uniform Rule 1(2) which states the crux of relevancy as “a tendency in reason,” thus perhaps emphasizing unduly the logical process and ignoring the need to draw upon experience or science to validate the general principle upon which relevancy in a particular situation depends.”

  53. avatar
    trader jack August 15, 2016 at 11:15 pm #

    Northland10: Here is Vogt’s method:

    1.Johnny has a recent $50 bill and decides it is counterfeit because it does not look like what he thinks it should.
    2.Johnny has never seen a $50 bill so he looks for some $50 bills to compare.
    3.Johnny gets 8 $50 bills and they all have the same features has his original $50 bill.
    4.Johnny declares the 8 $50 bills are also counterfeit.
    5.The Secret Service states that the $50 is not counterfeit.
    6.Johnny states the Secret Service is complicit in the conspiracy to counterfeit the $50 bill.
    7.The director of the Bureau of Engraving and the Treasurer of the United States that the $50 is legitimate, was produced by the Bureau and the serial number matches their records.
    8.Johnny says that the director and Treasurer are involved in the conspiracy to counterfeit.

    If you like this method, then I recommend you start demanding a court rule on the validity of any government checks you get.Don’t cash them until they are proved to be valid.Don’t take the government’s word.They can’t be trusted.

    Are you stating that the is really the way Vogt does that, and that you know it because he has so informed you, or but are you just using his name and citing a non-existing statement that you are implying he would say in an attempt to place hi in a wrong position of fact

  54. avatar
    trader jack August 15, 2016 at 11:31 pm #

    HistorianDude: . For example, of all the 1961 Hawaiian BCs we have, only the President’s was scanned on a Xerox WorkCentre to create the online PDF. As a result it uniquely bears the artifacts of JBIG2 and MRO compression that caused amateur birther analysts to declare “forgery” in the first place.

    Could that not also mean that the vagaries that do not exist on other similar document would simply indicate that the creation of the document shown to the public was not a normal transaction as the document was altered during processing not at the HDOH. Or was it not claimed that it was done on the Xerox at HDOH?

    If I recall correctly the discussion was that the HDOH has the Xerox and only the LFBC was used for it , and not for the others. And if you are claiming that it doesn’t appear on the other bc’s it must be that they did not have the XEROX when they were copied.
    so comparing them was a useless exercise of the mind

  55. avatar
    trader jack August 15, 2016 at 11:34 pm #

    Joey: Whether a public agency is telling the truth or not is irrelevant.
    .

    Now that is an interesting statement and seems to indicate something or the other that this old man is not used tol

  56. avatar
    trader jack August 15, 2016 at 11:44 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’m old enough to have had to fill out forms with a typewriter. I had to adjust the page all the time.

    Many old forms were designed for handwriting, and typing in the right space was sometimes a compromise. One hopes that Hawaii designed their form better. I don’t have an original full-sized version to test with.

    Yep, but in the case of Hawaiian bc if you compare the one filed out by the
    Army base with the one under discussion you can see the difference by the individual clerks. The army was much more precise in the typing

    Looking at the one under discussion you can see that the typewriter did not have the tabs set correctly, or what I would consider being correctly set.
    but typists being typist do what they want sometimel

    I used to require typing errors to have to have the whole thing redone to maintain quality of workmanship in the office

  57. avatar
    trader jack August 15, 2016 at 11:53 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Yes take you for instance who continues to show he doesn’t understand the meaning of words he uses. Thus far no birther has presented anything that could be considered evidence that directly rebuts the Hawaii BC.

    With out seeing the original birth record no rebuttable about the birth certificate can be made, but the viewer can indicate that the birth certificate contains errors or defects, that affect the validity of the document , not the birth, as the birth certificate only verifies the time and place of a birth of a child.

    OK, how about this, there is a document that was filed with a court that shows that the mother was in Kenya at the time of the birth, and that record directly contradicts the HDOH record.

    Now you can not , as I can not, directly rebut the Kenyan record like you would want me to do with the HDOH BC.

  58. avatar
    trader jack August 16, 2016 at 12:03 am #

    HistorianDude: “Unless rebutted” means that for the evidence to NOT establish a fact, it actually needs to be rebutted with evidence of equal or superior probative value. And the only evidence of equal or superior probative vale to a sealed and certified birth certificate from a state Department of Health would be either a contradictory birth certificate (also sealed and certified from a similar authority) or non-hearsay testimony from somebody on a position to actually know.

    Guess you never heard of Bustamante xlll

    From where do you derive this information?

    “What is REBUT?

    In pleading and evidence. To rebut is to defeat or take away the effect of something. Thus, when- a plaintiff in an action produces evidence which raises a pre- sumption of the defendant’s liability, and the defendant adduces evidence which shows that the presumption is ill-founded, he is said to “rebut it.”

    Law Dictionary: What is REBUT? definition of REBUT (Black’s Law Dictionary)

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 16, 2016 at 7:40 am #

    One can show through direct and admissible evidence that the person whose name is on the Smith certificate as hospital administrator was not hospital administrator on date indicated on the document. This requires no expertise, and no opinion. It is an irreconcilable contradiction, and it rebuts the Smith certificate. It is not necessary to have the physical certificate in order to perform the rebuttal, so long as the name and the date are clearly legible.

    trader jack: Now you can not , as I can not, directly rebut the Kenyan record like you would want me to do with the HDOH BC.

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 16, 2016 at 7:43 am #

    W know that this is how Vogt does it, because Vogt tells us how he arrived at his conclusions.

    trader jack: Are you stating that the is really the way Vogt does that, and that you know it because he has so informed you,

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 16, 2016 at 7:50 am #

    What you don’t quite grasp is that the question here is not relevance but competence.

    Facts are one thing, physical objects, eye-witness testimony. Opinion is another thing.

    Let’s say that fingerprints were lifted from the crime scene. That’s evidence. It’s admissible evidence. The jury can see the fingerprints because they are relevant.

    The testimony of the fingerprint examiner that the fingerprints match those of the defendant is an opinion and testimony as to an opinion is only admissible of the one with the opinion is qualified to give an opinion. There are recognized standards for matching fingerprints. If someone like Doug Vogt claimed that the fingerprints matched, he would never be allowed to say so in court because he is not qualified as a fingerprint examiner.

    The same is true with Vogt and the Obama birth certificate in a hypothetical court case. The birth certificate is admissible. The Booth family certificates and the Ah’nee certificate might be admissible. Dout Vogt’s conclusions about them are not because he is not a qualified document examiner and he is using no recognized standard to arrive at his opinions about them.

    trader jack: Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence

    Evidence is relevant if:

  62. avatar
    Northland10 August 16, 2016 at 9:12 am #

    I could not have come up with it on my own. I would have thought it too absurd, even for Birthers. I always underestimate their gifts for fractal wrongness.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    W know that this is how Vogt does it, because Vogt tells us how he arrived at his conclusions.

  63. avatar
    Reality Check August 16, 2016 at 9:18 am #

    Yes, and likewise had the Birther claim that the full name of Kapiolani hospital on the Obama LFBC was wrong that would have been a significant find and would have cast doubt on the authenticity of the document had the claim been correct. However, as we know from contemporary birth certificates and the historical record the name was correct.

    Likewise, every other Birther claim that some of the information on the Obama certificate is wrong has been debunked. The date, time, Doctor’s name, address of the parents, racial designations, pencil codes, certificate number, etc. all stand against various claims made by Birthers.

    That’s why the hard core Birthers like Doug Vogt and Paul Irey have been reduced to putting out real nonsense.

    Dr. Conspiracy: . It is not necessary to have the physical certificate in order to perform the rebuttal, so long as the name and the date are clearly legible.

  64. avatar
    Scientist August 16, 2016 at 9:25 am #

    trader jack: “What is REBUT?

    You can’t rebut a paper birth certificate with a pdf. In any court proceedings you would have to impeach the original paper record, not a computer file.

    Let me give you an example: Suppose I wish to claim that the Mona Lisa in the Louvre is a fake. I can’t do so by looking only at the web site louvre.fr, no matter how expert a forensic analyst of art I might be. I would have to go to Paris and analyze the actual painting.

    And that, among 100 other places is where Vogt is out to lunch. An analysis of a pdf is irrelevant when the original is a paper document.

  65. avatar
    bob August 16, 2016 at 10:56 am #

    trader jack: [T]here is a document that was filed with a court that shows that the mother was in Kenya at the time of the birth, and that record directly contradicts the HDOH record.

    Except there isn’t: At no point was Smith’s document ever filed with a court and relied upon as evidence of Obama’s birthplace.

    There is no admissible evidence that contradicts Hawaii’s birth ceridicate, which has been filed in courts and actually relied upon by courts as evidence of President Obama’s birth.

    Vogt’s, Irey’s, and your beliefs are not evidence; certainly they are not relevant evidence.

  66. avatar
    Rickey August 16, 2016 at 11:34 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Any number of birthers believe that the Reed Hayes report was published, and even a few claim to have read it although they cannot say when and where.

    Kind of like the birthers who claim that they were taught the “two-citizen parents” requirement in civics class.

  67. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund August 16, 2016 at 11:36 am #

    trader jack: Could that not also mean that the vagaries that do not exist on other similar document would simply indicate that the creation of the document shown to the public was not a normal transaction as the document was altered during processing not at the HDOH.Or was it not claimed that it was done on the Xerox at HDOH?

    If I recall correctly the discussion was that the HDOH has the Xerox and only the LFBC was used for it , and not for the others.And if you are claiming that it doesn’t appear on the other bc’s it must be that they did not have the XEROX when they were copied.
    so comparing them was a useless exercise of the mind

    As always, you don’t recall correctly. The paper LFBC was created at the HDoH using a special Xerox designed specifically for books (to prevent damge to the binding). A number of the other, recent bc’s were also made on this same special Xerox. A B&W photocopy of the paper LFBC was handed out with the press packet; Applewhite took a photograph of it. This can be used to compare to other bc’s that were not scanned using advanced compression techniques. Note, for example, that everything is at the same resolution.

    Once the paper LFBC arrived at the White House, it was scanned in color on a Xerox WorkCentre, which is quite different from the special Xerox at the HDoH. The use of this Xerox WorkCentre introduced most of the “anomalies” that birthers go on about – movable layers, multiple PPI, halos, and such. If you compare the photograph I linked to in the preceding paragraph to the scanned WH LFBC, you can see that most of the anomalies are only present on the scanned WH LFBC. In fact, we did an experiment that proved that the use of the Xerox WorkCentre created these anomalies. We took the photograph, printed it on green security paper similar to that used by HDoH, and scanned it on a Xerox WorkCentre. The resulting scan showed all the same anomalies that were present on the scanned WH LFBC but not present on the photograph – movable layers, multiple PPI, halos, and such.

  68. avatar
    Rickey August 16, 2016 at 11:43 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I’m old enough to have had to fill out forms with a typewriter. I had to adjust the page all the time.

    When I was in the Navy I occasionally had to stop typing something and remove it from the typewriter because something urgent had to be done first. When that was completed I had to put the first document back in the typewriter and try to align it so I could pick up where I left off. It was not easy to do.

  69. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 16, 2016 at 11:45 am #

    Northland10: Yeah..They forget their original premise from time to time.

    Sort of like Rudy Giuliani and 9/11.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 16, 2016 at 11:49 am #

    trader jack: With out seeing the original birth record no rebuttable about the birth certificate can be made, but the viewer can indicate that the birth certificate contains errors or defects, that affect the validity of the document , not the birth, as the birth certificate only verifies the time and place of a birth of a child.

    OK, how about this, there is a document that was filed with a court that shows that the mother was in Kenya at the time of the birth, and that record directly contradicts the HDOH record.

    Now you can not , as I can not, directly rebut the Kenyan record like you would want me to do with the HDOH BC.

    Please show us the law that requires the president to show you an original vault certificate because a bunch of halfwitted conspiracy theorists on the internet want him to? Otherwise you have nothing.

    So basically you’re saying what birthers have presented thus far doesn’t overrule the prima facie evidence of the certified copy of the birth certificate?

    There is no document “filed with the court” that shows Obama’s mother was in Kenya at the time.

  71. avatar
    Rickey August 16, 2016 at 11:55 am #

    trader jack:

    OK, how about this, there is a document that was filed with a court that shows that the mother was in Kenya at the time of the birth, and that record directly contradicts the HDOH record.

    Now you can not, as I can not, directly rebut the Kenyan record like you would want me to do with the HDOH BC.

    A 5-year-old child could rebut Lucas Smith’s pathetic forgery. Even Jerome Corsi deemed it a fraud, noting that “Administrators at Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, the hospital named as President Obama’s supposed birth hospital in the document, refused to authenticate the record when contacted by WND sources in Kenya.”

    http://www.wnd.com/2009/08/108005/

    There was never a need to rebut in a court of law because no court would ever accept it as admissible evidence.

  72. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund August 16, 2016 at 12:12 pm #

    Scientist: You can’t rebut a paper birth certificate with a pdf.In any court proceedings you would have to impeach the original paper record, not a computer file.

    Let me give you an example:Suppose I wish to claim that the Mona Lisa in the Louvre is a fake.I can’t do so by looking only at the web site louvre.fr, no matter how expert a forensic analyst of art I might be.I would have to go to Paris and analyze the actual painting.

    And that, among 100 other places is where Vogt is out to lunch.An analysis of a pdf is irrelevant when the original is a paper document.

    Not exactly true. As Doc noted, the Smith certificate is one case where you can identify a frogery simply from the image. Here’s another example:

    Say you send me a scan of a dollar bill. In the bottom right of the obverse face (heads if you will), I see “SERIES 2013” and a signature that looks something like “Timothy F. Graithman” above a script “Secretary of the Treasury”. I can immediately state that this image is fake or substantially altered. Timothy F. Geithner became Secretary of the Treasury in 2009. As such, all dollar bills printed during his tenure are of Series 2009, since there were no other design changes during that time. The Series 2013 should have Jack Lew’s signature. I don’t need the paper bill to tell you the image is faked or altered.

  73. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 16, 2016 at 12:21 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: So basically you’re saying what birthers have presented thus far doesn’t overrule the prima facie evidence of the certified copy of the birth certificate?


    And don’t forget he has admitted, “The dispute is not about where Obama was born.”

    A birth certificate is prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in the state. If there is no dispute about where Obama was born, then there is nothing to rebut.

  74. avatar
    Scientist August 16, 2016 at 12:27 pm #

    W. Kevin Vicklund: Say you send me a scan of a dollar bill. In the bottom right of the obverse face (heads if you will), I see “SERIES 2013” and a signature that looks something like “Timothy F. Graithman” above a script “Secretary of the Treasury”. I can immediately state that this image is fake or substantially altered. Timothy F. Geithner became Secretary of the Treasury in 2009. As such, all dollar bills printed during his tenure are of Series 2009, since there were no other design changes during that time. The Series 2013 should have Jack Lew’s signature. I don’t need the paper bill to tell you the image is faked or altered.

    While logically that’s true, I suspect in a court case, you would have to produce the actual paper bill, rather than the scan.

    Certainly, in the case where the actual information is not obviously wrong (as is the case on the birth certificate), the presence of layers or scanning artifacts wouldn’t be definitive. And in your dollar case, if the Federal Reserve said it was valid and they had made a printing error, that would end the discussion (though that might make the bill worth much more than $1 to collectors).

    In this case, Hawaii says it’s valid (and they didn’t make an error) so that’s the end of the story. They can’t make a counterfeit b.c., just as the Federal Reserve can’t make a counterfeit dollar bill, even if they screw up and put the wrong series number on it.

  75. avatar
    Joey August 16, 2016 at 2:03 pm #

    trader jack: Now that is an interesting statement and seems to indicate something or the other that this old man is not used tol

    Its so simple that even an old man should be able to understand: probative evidence trumps ( no pun intended) unrebutted sworn testimony.
    In ths case, Dr. Onaka can say anything, but the actual vault edition birth certificate is definitive proof of birth in any court of law.

  76. avatar
    Joey August 16, 2016 at 2:03 pm #

    trader jack: Now that is an interesting statement and seems to indicate something or the other that this old man is not used tol

    Its so simple that even an old man should be able to understand: probative evidence trumps ( no pun intended) unrebutted sworn testimony.
    In ths case, Dr. Onaka can say anything, but the actual vault edition birth certificate is definitive proof of birth in any court of law.

  77. avatar
    trader jack August 16, 2016 at 2:33 pm #

    I think that you do not understand that I am telling you that you are using double standards of proof for the LDS and the HDOH bcs.

    You claim, state , and aver, that your experts have rebutted all of the birther’s claims based upon individual studies of the information on the document, because it has been certified by the HDOH, and there fore must be correct

    You assume that HDOH form must be correct and accurate because of the certification.

    You claim that the Kenyan is a forgery based,, not on the copy but on the character of the person who claims to have obtained it.

    Now you should not claim that the Kenyan is fake because the information on the
    document is in error, as it is certified , and , per se, prima facie evidence of the fact of the recorded document.

    If you want to consider Kenya less capable than HDOH in their records , fine.

    But, as I have been told on this site, to rebut the document , you must show a different document that directly conflicts with the certified one.

    Justice assumes that both sides should be considered equally to determine the truth about the matter.

    I will put it this way. The certified copies of both documents are to be considered prima facie evidence that the documents in the file have been recorded and a true copy made and signed by a person or office holding the documents.

    And no one can say that they are absolutely true or false until you have seen the original birth records on file in the respective agencies.

    but it is a great example of how people look at things and make decisions that may be based on their personal desires

  78. avatar
    trader jack August 16, 2016 at 2:41 pm #

    Perhaps the solution to the problem would be to submit both items to the Attorney General of Hawaii and ask that agency to solve the problem. Or to the IG of the HDOH?

    What do you think would happen?

    A Pennsylvania Jury found Democrat Attorney General Kathleen Kane guilty on nine criminal counts last night including conspiracy and perjury. Elected to office in 2014, found guilty of criminal conspiracy in 2016:

  79. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 16, 2016 at 3:12 pm #

    The government of Hawaii says they provided Obama with a certified copy that he posted on his web site. No entity in Kenya has ever said that the Smith certificate was certified by them.

    That is an essential difference.

    I further disagree that we discredit the Smith certificate because of the character of Smith. We discredit the Smith certificate because it has no provenance, and it contains historical errors. The fact that Smith is a forger is not necessary to discredit his birth certificate, although it does raise the question of why anybody would trust a document from him.

    trader jack: Now you should not claim that the Kenyan is fake because the information on the
    document is in error, as it is certified , and , per se, prima facie evidence of the fact of the recorded document.

  80. avatar
    Arthur B. August 16, 2016 at 3:18 pm #

    trader jack: If you want to consider Kenya less capable than HDOH in their records , fine.

    Justice assumes that both sides should be considered equally to determine the truth about the matter.

    trader jack, you have been told this many times. I will tell you once more.

    According to U.S. federal law, purported domestic documents are treated in an entirely different fashion from purported foreign documents. In other words, there is indeed a double standard, one that is strictly mandated by the law.

    Check Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and compare section 1 (“Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed”) with section 3 (“Foreign Public Documents”). You will see that a piece of paper purporting to be a Hawaiian public document is given a completely different legal status from one purporting to be a Kenyan document. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902) In particular, the domestic document is prima facie evidence; the foreign one is not even admissible.

    No matter how many times you insist that the two documents deserve to be evaluated on a level playing field, the law is not on your side.

  81. avatar
    bob August 16, 2016 at 3:36 pm #

    trader jack:
    I think that you do not understand that I am telling you that you are using double standards of proof for the LDS and the HDOH bcs.

    I know that you do understand that you are using double standards: Hawaii’s birth certificate is admissible evidence of President Obama’s birth. Smith’s document is not admissible and therefore is not evidence of anything. You ignore the problems with Smith’s document; you insist the two are equal when they are not.

    You assume that HDOH form mustbe correct and accurate because of the certification.

    Because that is exactly what the law instructs, as there is no admissible evidence to rebut its presumption of correctness.

    If you want to consider Kenya less capable than HDOH intheir records , fine.

    It is “less capable” because legally it is nothing.

    Justice assumes that both sides should be considered equally to determine the truth about the matter.

    Justice requires admissible evidence, and there is no admissible evidence to contradict Hawaii’s birth certificate.

    The certified copies of both documents are to be considered prima facie evidence that the documents in the file have been recorded anda true copy made and signed by a person or office holding the documents.

    Under the applicable rules of evidence, Smith’s document has not been properly certified; it is therefore not evidence of anything.

    And no one can say that they are absolutely true or false until you have seen the original birth records on file in the respective agencies.

    But every U.S. government agency can say — and legally must conclude — that Hawaii’s birth certificate is sufficiently true to establish that President Obama was born in Hawaii.

    but it is a great example of how people look at things and make decisions that may be based on their personal desires

    Oh, the irony: your desire to ignore both facts and law is extremely evident.

  82. avatar
    Scientist August 16, 2016 at 4:00 pm #

    trader jack: You claim that the Kenyan is a forgery based,, not on the copy but on the character of the person who claims to have obtained it.

    Where is the evidence Smith was in Kenya? I have never been convicted of any crime, but If I claimed to have found, in a cave in Israel, the original scrolls that show the books currently believed to be The Bible are wrong, any reasonable person should ask as a first step that I show a passport with an Israeli entry stamp, or a plane ticket to Tel Aviv or a hotel receipt or something to show I actually went there. That would be a minimum even for someone never even accused of forgery, let alone convicted of it,

  83. avatar
    HistorianDude August 16, 2016 at 4:05 pm #

    So much TraderJack, so little time:

    trader jack:
    And you folks know that as you refer to it quite constantly.
    there is NO EVIDENCEthat Vogt is wrong as like the birthers as no competent court has ruled on it
    there is NO EVDIENCEthat Vogt is correct as like the anti-birthers as no competent court hasruled on it.

    Nonsense. There is a vast amount of evidence for many things that have never been ruled on in court. Example: There is a lot of evidence earth actually does orbit the sun in spite of it never having been ruled on in court.

    ,thepublication of the document in the press might have eliminated the HIPPI limitations on the disclosure of private information there appears to be no reasonable reason that the document should not be available to the public at will.

    Gong!

    There is nothing that can legally void HIPAA or other relevant privacy laws. No matter what any person does to publicize their own information, the government or health care providers are still proscribed by law from releasing anything.

    If you truly believe that the public agencies always tell the truth,may you live happy lives trusting the government.

    Until such time as you provide evidence that public agencies are not telling the truth, I have bad news. The legal presumption is that they are telling the truth.

    Again… you can rebut that presumption. But no birther ever actually has.

  84. avatar
    HistorianDude August 16, 2016 at 4:08 pm #

    trader jack:
    Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence

    Evidence is relevant if: (snip)

    Evidence cannot be relevant unless it actually is evidence.

  85. avatar
    HistorianDude August 16, 2016 at 4:13 pm #

    trader jack: Could that not also mean that the vagaries that do not exist on other similar document would simply indicate that the creation of the document shown to the public was not a normal transaction as the document was altered during processing not at the HDOH.Or was it not claimed that it was done on the Xerox at HDOH?

    Actually, no. Unless you are comparing apples to apples (and we know for a fact you’re not) we cannot even identify what is a “vagary” and what is not.

    If I recall correctly the discussion was that the HDOH has the Xerox and only the LFBC was used for it , and not for the others.And if you are claiming that it doesn’t appear on the other bc’s it must be that they did not have the XEROX when they were copied.
    so comparing them was a useless exercise of the mind

    Well, no. The Xerox was in the White House, and they used it to create the PDF they posted on line.

    Otherwise, congratulations. You are finally wrapping your head around the total futility of Vogt’s analysis.

  86. avatar
    HistorianDude August 16, 2016 at 4:17 pm #

    trader jack: Yep, but in the case of Hawaiian bc if you compare the one filed out by the
    Army base with the one under discussion you can see the difference by the individual clerks.The army was much more precise in the typing

    Not “more precise.” Simply different.

    Looking at theone under discussion you can see that the typewriter did not have the tabs set correctly, or what I would consider being correctly set.
    but typists being typist do what they want sometimel

    There was no standard for “correct.” The use of tabs was purely the prerogative of the typist.

    I used to require typing errors to have to have the whole thing redoneto maintain quality of workmanship in the office

    None of these certificates show any typing errors.

    Again, they are simply different.

  87. avatar
    HistorianDude August 16, 2016 at 4:21 pm #

    trader jack: With out seeing the original birth record no rebuttable about the birth certificate canbe made, but the viewer can indicate that the birth certificate contains errors or defects, that affect the validity of the document , not the birth, as the birth certificate only verifies the time and place of a birth of a child.

    You seem unclear on the concept of birth certificates. Because the original is a “single user system” we invented certified copies to extend the complete authority of the original to other uses.

    Any information that rebuts the original should be fully capable of rebutting a certified copy.

    OK, how about this, there is a document that was filed with a court that shows that the mother was in Kenya at the time of the birth, and that record directly contradicts the HDOH record.

    It depends on whether or not the filed document is actually admissible evidence.

  88. avatar
    HistorianDude August 16, 2016 at 4:34 pm #

    trader jack:
    I think that you do not understand that I am telling you that you are using double standards of proof for the LDS and the HDOH bcs.

    Not true. Under the same standard applied to both, the HDoH document is prima facie evidence of the information it contains, while the LDS document is inadmissible hearsay.

    You assume that HDOH form mustbe correct and accurate because of the certification.

    By definition, the HDoH is the only authority on the planet qualified and authorized to have an opinion on the authenticity of their documents. Under the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution, what you call an “assumption” is actually the legal presumption.

    You claim that the Kenyan is a forgery based,, not on the copy but on thecharacter of the person who claims to have obtained it.

    Actually, no. The “Kenyan” BC is a forgery based on the fact that it bears no resemblance to any actual birth certificate ever created by the Kenyan government r any of its predecessors.

    Now you should not claim that the Kenyan is fake because the information on the
    document is in error, as it is certified , and , per se, prima facie evidence of the fact of the recorded document.

    No. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, is absolutely is not.

    If you want to consider Kenya less capable than HDOH intheir records , fine.

    We have no choice. The law demands it.

    But, as I have been told on this site, to rebut the document,you must show a different document that directly conflicts with the certified one.

    Close. A different document of the same or greater probative value. The Smith BC is of no probative value.

    Justice assumes that both sides should be considered equally to determine the truth about the matter.

    No. Justice assumes that the side with evidence is superior to the side that has none.

    I will put it this way.The certified copies of both documents are to be considered prima facie evidence that the documents in the file have been recorded anda true copy made and signed by a person or office holding the documents.

    Again, no. Only US generated documents are prima facie evidence of the information it contains. An unprovenanced foreign document has no such value.

    And no one can say that they are absolutely true or false until you have seen the original birth records on file in the respective agencies.

    Again, wrong. A certified copy is adequate. That’s why we invented them.

  89. avatar
    HistorianDude August 16, 2016 at 4:35 pm #

    trader jack:
    Perhaps the solution to the problem would be to submit both items to the Attorney General of Hawaii and ask that agency to solve the problem. Or to the IG of the HDOH?

    You seem unclear on the concept. There is no problem to solve.

  90. avatar
    Scientist August 16, 2016 at 5:15 pm #

    HistorianDude: ou seem unclear on the concept. There is no problem to solve.

    Yes I would like jack to explain what the problem is. Obama is leaving office, Arpaio may well be voted out and has plenty of problems that will occupy his remaining years beyond this matter. It won’t change a single vote in Trump v. Clinton, as, IMO, it didn’t change a single vote in Obama v. Romney or Obama v. McCain. Every birther will vote for Trump regardless, and non-birthers will vote largely, though not exclusively, for Hillary.

    It’s a dead issue. The electrons we are sending through the interwebs are wasted at this point. Not even the historians will really care; they will focus on the substantive matters of foreign and domestic policy in judging the Obama presidency, whether positively or negatively.

  91. avatar
    Reality Check August 16, 2016 at 8:45 pm #

    There is also the little issue that Smith was trying to sell his POSFKBC on eBay for several thousand dollars.

    Dr. Conspiracy: I further disagree that we discredit the Smith certificate because of the character of Smith.

  92. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 16, 2016 at 9:06 pm #

    Two points Trader jerk seems to refuse to recognize. The HDH, the state agency, and the only one in HI who can legally make that declaration, has repeatedly verified and certified the Obama certificates. Kenya on the other hand has officially repeatedly said that NO he wasn’t born there and NO there was NO birth certificate recorded there. Therefore, the Obama certificate from HI have been certified and proven by the only agency that can do so, and the Smith forgeries have been denied by the state he claims issued it. The only controversy remaining is in the heads of the feeble minded who can’t seem to grasp reality when it steps up and bitch slaps them. The Smith POS has NO provenance and no verifiability, and is therefore legally and factually worthless other than as a pathetic curiosity.

  93. avatar
    Keith August 16, 2016 at 9:30 pm #

    Scientist: Yes I would like jack to explain what the problem is. Obama is leaving office,

    Well, there is still the “magic reset button” thing.

  94. avatar
    Arthur B. August 16, 2016 at 9:53 pm #

    Keith: Well, there is still the “magic reset button” thing.

    And the “frog-marching” thing…

  95. avatar
    Scientist August 16, 2016 at 10:05 pm #

    Keith: Well, there is still the “magic reset button” thing.

    Can I borrow it and make myself 25 again?

  96. avatar
    Scientist August 16, 2016 at 10:10 pm #

    Notorial Dissent: The HDH, the state agency, and the only one in HI who can legally make that declaration, has repeatedly verified and certified the Obama certificates. Kenya on the other hand has officially repeatedly said that NO he wasn’t born there and NO there was NO birth certificate recorded there.

    Jack cares only how the certificate looks. If you made a beautiful “Deed of Ownership” for the Brooklyn Bridge, jack would happily buy it as long as the font looked nice, the lines were straight and “Brooklyn Bridge” was spelled correctly. The fact that the NYC Dept of Transportation said it was invalid wouldn’t matter to him.

  97. avatar
    JD Reed August 16, 2016 at 11:42 pm #

    trader jack:
    I think that you do not understand that I am telling you that you are using double standards of proof for the LDS and the HDOH bcs.

    You claim, state , and aver, thatyour experts have rebutted all of the birther’s claims based upon individual studies of the information on the document,because it has been certified by the HDOH, and there fore must be correct

    You assume that HDOH form mustbe correct and accurate because of the certification.

    You claim that the Kenyan is a forgery based,, not on the copy but on thecharacter of the person who claims to have obtained it.

    Now you should not claim that the Kenyan is fake because the information on the
    document is in error, as it is certified , and , per se, prima facie evidence of the fact of the recorded document.

    If you want to consider Kenya less capable than HDOH intheir records , fine.

    But, as I have been told on this site, to rebut the document,you must show a different document that directly conflicts with the certified one.

    Justice assumes that both sides should be considered equally to determine the truth about the matter.

    I will put it this way.The certified copies of both documents are to be considered prima facie evidence that the documents in the file have been recorded anda true copy made and signed by a person or office holding the documents.

    And no one can say that they are absolutely true or false until you have seen the original birth records on file in the respective agencies.

    but it is a great example of how people look at things and make decisions that may be based on their personal desires


    Jack, I think Doc is right about the character of Lucas Smith not being the problem with his proferred document, in a legal sense. But as a practical matter, why would anyone believe a convicted forger when he attests that his document is genuine and not a forgery? That’s his very stock in trade. It would be like not even raising when someone with a history of passing off worthless junk as precious gems,
    tells you that the glittering objects before your eyes are genuine diamonds, so please pay him now because he has to catch a plane to parts unknown.

  98. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 17, 2016 at 12:12 am #

    JD Reed: But as a practical matter, why would anyone believe a convicted forger when he attests that his document is genuine and not a forgery? That’s his very stock in trade.

    —-
    If Lucas ever got on a witness stand to authenticate the purported Kenyan certificate, he would be impeached with his criminal record of forgery and other crimes of dishonesty.

    In contrast, a certified Hawaiian birth certificate is self-authenticating.

  99. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 17, 2016 at 1:46 am #

    More to the point, he’d be impeached because he could provide NO proof as to the actual veracity of the document, and if it was presented in evidence, that it was a crude forgery would be evident. Smith is an inveterate liar and a forger. His word is worth nothing, and the document would show him to be a liar.

    J.D. Sue: —-
    If Lucas ever got on a witness stand to authenticate the purported Kenyan certificate, he would be impeached with his criminal record of forgery and other crimes of dishonesty.

    In contrast, a certified Hawaiian birth certificate is self-authenticating.

  100. avatar
    trader jack August 17, 2016 at 2:28 am #

    oh, for heaven’s sake, again

    All of what you are claiming is if the case in in court!

    Nothing said or printed on this site pertains to a court action.

    It is all just what people think and read about the problems of birth certificates in usage.

    Your determination that one certified birth certificate is better, or worse, than another certified birth certificate are simply opinions.

    There would have been less uproar about LDS if Kenyan bc had been submitted by Henry Hermatian, but the fact that someone discovered that he had previously been convicted of felonies made the bc unworthy or consideration,

    Kenya would never confirm the contents of the document as they are not a party to the treaty, and Hawaii would never confirm the truth in the document if it was needed in a Kenyan court.

    Heck, I don’t know if either of them are true, or false.

    But I will admit that both of them have problems in the presentation in the documents, but as they are both signed and sealed, I will accept both of them as being accurate records of what is in the records, until someone shows that they are not in the records as presented in the certified copies

    so the question is : are both document sealed and certified by the proper agency,? If so why do you prefer one or the other?

    Remembering that the LDS is pen signed and the rubber stamped signature used.

  101. avatar
    trader jack August 17, 2016 at 2:37 am #

    Notorial Dissent:
    Two points Trader jerk seems to refuse to recognize. The HDH, the state agency, and the only one in HI who can legally make that declaration, has repeatedly verified and certified the Obama certificates. Kenya on the other hand has officially repeatedly said that NO he wasn’t born there and NO there was NO birth certificate recorded there.Therefore, the Obama certificate from HI have been certified and proven by the only agency that can do so, and the Smith forgeries have been denied by the state he claims issued it. The only controversy remaining is in the heads of the feeble minded who can’t seem to grasp reality when it steps up and bitch slaps them. The Smith POS has NO provenance and no verifiability, and is therefore legally and factually worthless other than as a pathetic curiosity.

    Good heavens , again. No one in the HDOH will authentic the birth record as it is only attested to by the mother and the doctor.
    All they can ever do is say it is a certified copy of a document on file with the HDOH, and they will provide authorized party a copy of it, even if the birth record has been changed by adoption or correction

    Provenance means nothing if the original birth record has been altered or changed,

  102. avatar
    trader jack August 17, 2016 at 3:01 am #

    J.D. Sue: —-
    If Lucas ever got on a witness stand to authenticate the purported Kenyan certificate, he would be impeached with his criminal record of forgery and other crimes of dishonesty.

    In contrast, a certified Hawaiian birth certificate is self-authenticating.

    How can it be self authenticating if the State of Hawaii when issuing a apostille for use in a different country specifically states that the do not guarantee the contents of the birth certificate or the legality of said document.

    Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating | Federal Rules of …

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902

    Legal Information Institute

    Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating. (B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation. (B) another public officer who has a seal and official duties within that same entity certifies under seal — or its equivalent — that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine

    “The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:

    (1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A document that bears:

    (A) a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States; the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; a political subdivision of any of these entities; or a department, agency, or officer of any entity named above; and

    (B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation.

    (2) Domestic Public Documents That Are Not Sealed but Are Signed and Certified. A document that bears no seal if:

    (A) it bears the signature of an officer or employee of an entity named in Rule 902(1)(A); and

    (B) another public officer who has a seal and official duties within that same entity certifies under seal — or its equivalent — that the signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine.

    Do you seen any certification that the signature is genuine?
    Now perhaps you can show me how the HDOH meets those standards

  103. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 17, 2016 at 6:20 am #

    Scientist: but If I claimed to have found, in a cave in Israel, the original scrolls that show the books currently believed to be The Bible are wrong, any reasonable person should ask as a first step that I show a passport with an Israeli entry stamp, or a plane ticket to Tel Aviv or a hotel receipt or something to show I actually went there

    I guess the birther line is “we don’t care where the dude got it from as long as he got it”. Not that that’s helping them in any way.

    I’m actually curious as to how long Obama birtherism will survive. In Germany, we have cranks who believe a 1973 ruling from our Supreme Court means our state doesn’t legally exist (and therefore there are no valid laws and so on).
    Just wonder if some RW’s in 2050 will still claim Obama was not a real President and therefore everything that happened afterwards was illegitimate, too.

  104. avatar
    Scientist August 17, 2016 at 6:41 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): Just wonder if some RW’s in 2050 will still claim Obama was not a real President and therefore everything that happened afterwards was illegitimate, too.

    I would wager a large sum of money that will happen. Also, that normal people will ignore them then as they do today.

  105. avatar
    Northland10 August 17, 2016 at 7:50 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): I’m actually curious as to how long Obama birtherism will survive. In Germany, we have cranks who believe a 1973 ruling from our Supreme Court means our state doesn’t legally exist (and therefore there are no valid laws and so on).

    Only 1973? We have people who believe a law incorporating the municipality of Washington DC in 1871 actually turned the US Government into a corporation, so our government and the laws have been invalid since that time.

    Granted, they only made up this unique ideology sometime after the 1970s (Posse Commitatus/SovCit).

  106. avatar
    Northland10 August 17, 2016 at 7:55 am #

    J.D. Sue: If Lucas ever got on a witness stand to authenticate the purported Kenyan certificate, he would be impeached with his criminal record of forgery and other crimes of dishonesty.

    Taking the witness stand might be difficult since he would be subject to arrest if he reentered the country. He has an outstanding warrant for absconding in Iowa. His sentence for passing bad checks was restitution. He skipped the country instead.

  107. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 17, 2016 at 9:22 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): I guess the birther line is “we don’t care where the dude got it from as long as he got it”. Not that that’s helping them in any way.

    I’m actually curious as to how long Obama birtherism will survive. In Germany, we have cranks who believe a 1973 ruling from our Supreme Court means our state doesn’t legally exist (and therefore there are no valid laws and so on).
    Just wonder if some RW’s in 2050 will still claim Obama was not a real President and therefore everything that happened afterwards was illegitimate, too.

    Well we have cranks like that here that believe the United States doesn’t exist because they think we’re a corporation. They don’t understand what municipal incorporations actually mean.

  108. avatar
    Rickey August 17, 2016 at 3:15 pm #

    Scientist: Jack cares only how the certificate looks.If you made a beautiful “Deed of Ownership” for the Brooklyn Bridge, jack would happily buy it as long as the font looked nice, the lines were straight and “Brooklyn Bridge” was spelled correctly.The fact that the NYC Dept of Transportation said it was invalid wouldn’t matter to him.

    And let’s not forget that Jack’s fallback position is that even if the birth certificate is legit, it doesn’t mean that the facts on it are accurate. That being the case, perhaps he could enlighten us and explain exactly what proof he would need to believe that the birth certificate is accurate.

    The hospital records? Even in the unlikely even that they still exist after 55 years, how can we be sure that they are accurate? Theoretically, according to Jack’s logic, someone could have removed the original records and replaced them with false information.

    Testimony of witnesses? Two of the three people who signed the birth certificate are dead, and Verna K. Lee wasn’t present at the birth. There may have been another doctor present, but if so he would be in his eighties (at least) now. There likely was a nurse present, but if she alive and could be found she is probably at least 80 years old as well.

    The fact of the matter is that our legal system would come to a screeching halt if courts required the kind of proof that Jack demands. When I obtain a certified police report from DMV, I don’t send it to a documents expert to verify its authenticity. I rely on the state’s certification that it is a true copy of the original, and so do the courts.

    The only information on the birth certificate which conceivably could be incorrect is the identification of Barack Obama Sr. as the father, because that information was self-reported by Obama’s mother. Obama Sr., of course, never denied that he was the father, and in fact he always acknowledged it. But even if he wasn’t the father it would have no bearing on President Obama’s eligibility.

  109. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 17, 2016 at 3:22 pm #

    Rickey: The fact of the matter is that our legal system would come to a screeching halt if courts required the kind of proof that Jack demands. When I obtain a certified police report from DMV, I don’t send it to a documents expert to verify its authenticity. I rely on the state’s certification that it is a true copy of the original, and so do the courts.

    It makes me wonder if Jack always walks in tow with a certified currency expert every time he shops at Walmart.

  110. avatar
    trader jack August 17, 2016 at 4:25 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: It makes me wonder if Jack always walks in tow with a certified currency expert every time he shops at Walmart.

    I have never bought anything at Walmart, which does not mean that I won’t buy something from WalMart if I so desire.

    Most of the time my cash purchases are scrutinized by the clerk at the register as they hold the bills up to the light or mark them with a sampling pen.

    What is it, you think that people who shop WalMart are inferior to you, or superior to you?

    Do you dispute my postings on prima facie, or what?

  111. avatar
    trader jack August 17, 2016 at 4:32 pm #

    Northland10: Taking the witness stand might be difficult since he would be subject to arrest if he reentered the country. He has an outstanding warrant for absconding in Iowa. His sentence for passing bad checks was restitution. He skipped the country instead.

    I think the proper word would be “could” instead of “would” because enforcement of an state warrant would be problematical unless it came to the attention of the enforcement agencies, which seems unlikely as they seem to be having a hard time getting people arrested for crimes these days

  112. avatar
    trader jack August 17, 2016 at 4:40 pm #

    Rickey: And let’s not forget that Jack’s fallback position is that even if the birth certificate is legit, it doesn’t mean that the facts on it are accurate. That being the case, perhaps he could enlighten us and explain exactly what proof he would need to believe that the birth certificate is accurate.

    What I am trying to do is instill in the readers the basic fact that a certified copy of a document does not indicate that the birth record is the same as the certified copy of the current filed document.
    It is just a copy of what is on record that is current at the time of copying.

    Why do you think that they have a place on the birth certificate to indicate that the birth record had been amended, altered, or changed? And how could you find out what the real record would be unless the information was available to you, which is isn’t.

  113. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 17, 2016 at 4:53 pm #

    The “current document” as indicated by the certified copy is dated August 8, 1961, so that indicates that the current document has been current since 4 days after Obama’s birth until the long form was published in 2011.

    So while I understand what you are saying, I can see no application.

    trader jack: It is just a copy of what is on record that is current at the time of copying.

  114. avatar
    Scientist August 17, 2016 at 5:03 pm #

    trader jack: I think the proper word would be “could” instead of “would” because enforcement of an state warrant would be problematical unless it came to the attention of the enforcement agencies, which seems unlikely as they seem to be having a hard time getting people arrested for crimes these days

    Customs would flag him on entering the country. They do check. You ought to travel more. And I don’t believe you’re 93. If you really were, you wouldn’t waste the little time you have left on Earth with the nonsense you are wasting your time on.

  115. avatar
    Northland10 August 17, 2016 at 6:09 pm #

    trader jack: I think the proper word would be “could” instead of “would” because enforcement of an state warrant would be problematical unless it came to the attention of the enforcement agencies,which seems unlikely as they seem to be having a hard time getting people arrested for crimes these days

    I said he would be subject to arrest. I did not say he would be arrested. He has an outstanding warrant for abscoundong on a felony conviction. He is subject to arrest if law enforcement so chooses.

    For the latest crime, he was actually arrested in the southwest on an Iowa warrant and transported back to Iowa. They do arrest people for out of state warrants.

  116. avatar
    Rickey August 17, 2016 at 7:00 pm #

    trader jack:

    Why do you think that they have a place on the birth certificate to indicate that the birth record had been amended, altered, or changed? And how could you find out what the real record would be unless the information was available to you, which is isn’t.

    As Doc has noted, Obama’s birth certificate is dated four days after his birth, and nowhere is it identified as being amended, altered or changed, so your point has no relevance to this discussion.

    And you avoided answering my question. What proof would satisfy you that the information on Obama’s LFBC is accurate?

  117. avatar
    gorefan August 17, 2016 at 7:15 pm #

    trader jack: Why do you think that they have a place on the birth certificate to indicate that the birth record had been amended, altered, or changed? And how could you find out what the real record would be unless the information was available to you, which is isn’t.

    Box 23 Evidence for Delayed Filing or Alteration is blank on President Obama’s birth certificate. His certificate is not a delayed filing as by Hawaiian law that is a registration one year after the event (in this case his birth). We also know it has not been amended as Hawaiian law in effect in 1961 requires “a single line be drawn through the incorrect entry and the correct data inserted. A notation shall be entered on the certificate showing what information was amended and on what authority, the date of the action and the initials of the reviewer.”

    None of the entries on his certificate have been struck out.

  118. avatar
    Rickey August 17, 2016 at 7:34 pm #

    According to the State of Hawaii, the following persons can apply for an amended birth certificate:

    As provided by law (HRS §§338-17.7, 338-20.5), the following persons may apply for an amended certificate of birth:

    A person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and

    has become legally adopted, or
    is requesting a new birth certificate with a sex designation change, or
    a legal determination of the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file has been made, or
    previously recorded information in relation to the person’s surname and/or the father’s personal particulars has been altered pursuant to law.

    A person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii.

    None of those provisions apply to Barack Obama.

    1. He was never legally adopted.
    2. He has not had a sex change.
    3. It has never been determined that Barack Obama Sr. was not his father.
    4, He has never changed his surname pursuant to law.

    Even if any of the above provisions had applied to Obama, none of them would have made him ineligible to be president.

    As for number 5, he was not born in a foreign country and adopted in the State of Hawaii. And Hawaii DOH has affirmed that if he had been born in a foreign country his birth certificate would not say that he was born in Hawaii.

    The ‘issue” of an amended birth certificate is nothing but a red herring.

    http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/amended-certificate-of-birth/

  119. avatar
    Keith August 17, 2016 at 10:21 pm #

    gorefan: Box 23 Evidence for Delayed Filing or Alteration is blank on President Obama’s birth certificate. His certificate is not a delayed filing as by Hawaiian law that is a registration one year after the event (in this case his birth). We also know it has not been amended as Hawaiian law in effect in 1961 requires “a single line be drawn through the incorrect entry and the correct data inserted. A notation shall be entered on the certificate showing what information was amended and on what authority, the date of the action and the initials of the reviewer.”

    None of the entries on his certificate have been struck out.

    As a side note, and just for comparison purposes, I was born in Michigan.

    A number of years ago I sent to the State for a copy of my birth certificate, and providing all my details to help them find it in their records, including the information that my Mother’s middle name had been misspelled. The Certificate I received back was one of the negative image types, white letters on a black background. My mother’s name had been corrected manually – the original spelling crossed out and the corrected spelling written in by hand – with notations as to who did it and why.

    A couple of years ago I sent off for another one; this time to the county. The certificate I received back was a computer generated one, on real fancy security paper, pretty multicolored seals and everything. My mother’s name was misspelled.

    This leads me to the conclusion that in Michigan the State keeps one set of records, and the county, or maybe just some counties, keep a second set. The other possibility is that when the records were computerized, they ignored the corrections like my mother’s name as it is really of little consequence.

  120. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund August 17, 2016 at 11:19 pm #

    trader jack: What I am trying to do is instill in the readers the basic fact that a certified copy of a document does not indicate that the birth record is the same as the certified copy of the current filed document.

    In other words, you came here to teach grandma how to suck eggs.

  121. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund August 17, 2016 at 11:23 pm #

    Keith: This leads me to the conclusion that in Michigan the State keeps one set of records, and the county, or maybe just some counties, keep a second set.

    That conclusion is correct.

  122. avatar
    JD Reed August 17, 2016 at 11:42 pm #

    Rickey: As Doc has noted, Obama’s birth certificate is dated four days after his birth, and nowhere is it identified as being amended, altered or changed, so your point has no relevance to this discussion.

    And you avoided answering my question. What proof would satisfy you that the informationon Obama’s LFBC is accurate?

    I can answer for Trader: Nothing whatsoever

  123. avatar
    bob August 18, 2016 at 3:17 am #

    trader jack: What I am trying to do is instill in the readers the basic fact that a certified copy of a document does not indicate that the birth record is the same as the certified copy of the current filed document.
    It is just a copy of what is on record that is current at the time of copying.

    Congratulations: You’ve simplistically described how birth certificates were intended to work, and do in fact work. Information that most here already knew.

    Governments have such confidence in the security of the certification systems that they created that they’ve also passed laws saying such certificates are sufficient evidence of the information contained in the record, such as the of place of birth.

    And you have still yet to provide any admissible evidence that the information contained in President Obama’s birth certificate is inaccurate. There is nothing to indicate that President Obama’s birth record is different than the information maintained by the State of Hawaii. Your speculation and belief is evidence only of you speculating and believing.

    That you have unsubstantiated doubts only about President Obama’s birth certificate is telling.

  124. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2016 at 7:26 am #

    I know from personal experience that counties keep records in California, Virginia, Indiana, Georgia and New Jersey. For example in Georgia, the county records the birth then sends information to the state. I was in the records room in DeKalb County Georgia. That was where one of the death certificates had the physician’s cause of death statement: “Don’t know. Was dead when I got there.” Some states have little tabs on certain pages in the books to indicate the bizarre or funny stuff.

    These are things Vogt wouldn’t know, since he’s never been inside a vital records operation. Heck, when I worked for the County, I actually printed certified copies of birth certificates for customers, although someone else had to sign them as I was not a registrar.

    Keith: This leads me to the conclusion that in Michigan the State keeps one set of records, and the county, or maybe just some counties, keep a second set.

  125. avatar
    Northland10 August 18, 2016 at 7:38 am #

    Keith: This leads me to the conclusion that in Michigan the State keeps one set of records, and the county, or maybe just some counties, keep a second set.

    I have a copy made in the 1970s. It was from the county so the state number is not even on the certificate (minus the pre-printed 121). It only has the local file number and a certification by the county. The copy I ordered from the state not long ago was computer generated, but made to look closer to the old form, and on security paper. It has the state number and the local file number. There is a blank line for a CF number, whatever that is.

    My hunch is that there are birthers who would accept my old one over the new one, even though the new one includes the state number, and has many security features. If it was Obama’s they would except neither.

  126. avatar
    Rickey August 18, 2016 at 12:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I know from personal experience that counties keep records in California, Virginia, Indiana, Georgia and New Jersey.

    New York State appears to be unique in that it does not file or maintain birth certificates for people born in New York City and its boroughs. Those have to be obtained from the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene.

    It used to be that birth certificates were available from local registrars, but that no longer seems to be the case. Whenever I needed my birth certificate I ordered it from the registrar in the town where I was born, but the last time I needed one was nearly 20 years ago.

  127. avatar
    Reality Check August 18, 2016 at 1:11 pm #

    Indeed. Trump’s BC was issued by New York City.

    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/933716/thumbs/o-TRUMP-570.jpg?6

    It is a short form “Certification” and not a long form “Certificate” though so it’s probably a fake and not worth the paper it’s not printed on. 😆

    Rickey: New York State appears to be unique in that it does not file or maintain birth certificates for people born in New York City and its boroughs.

  128. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2016 at 2:25 pm #

    Reality Check: It is a short form “Certification” and not a long form “Certificate” though so it’s probably a fake and not worth the paper it’s not printed on. 😆

    It’s computer generated. Totally worthless,.

  129. avatar
    Joey August 18, 2016 at 3:01 pm #

    Rickey: New York State appears to be unique in that it does not file or maintain birth certificates for people born in New York City and its boroughs. Those have to be obtained from the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene.

    It used to be that birth certificates were available from local registrars, but that no longer seems to be the case. Whenever I needed my birth certificate I ordered it from the registrar in the town where I was born, but the last time I needed one was nearly 20 years ago.

    I was born 20 miles from Times Square but not withn the New York City limits. My birth certfcate was issued by Westchester County.

  130. avatar
    Joey August 18, 2016 at 3:11 pm #

    trader jack: What I am trying to do is instill in the readers the basic fact that a certified copy of a document does not indicate that the birth record is the same as the certified copy of the current filed document.
    It is just a copy of what is on record that is current at the time of copying.

    Why do you think that they have a place on the birth certificate to indicate that the birth record had been amended, altered, or changed? And how could you find out what the real record would be unless the information was available to you, which is isn’t.

    That’s why the Certified Letters of Verification issued by state Registrar Dr. Onaka in which he confirmed that the data on the original and the data on the certified copies matched were important official pieces of corroborating evidence.
    Trader Jack appears not to be cognizant of the most basic facts of the chronology of events that have occurred over the last eight years.

  131. avatar
    Joey August 18, 2016 at 3:35 pm #

    The Certified Letter of Verification for Barack Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth that was prepared for U.S. District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate in the Mississippi eligibility challenge filed by Orly Taitz, states:
    “The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at
    http://www . whitehouse. gov/blog/20 11/04/27 /president-obamas-Iong-form-
    birth-certificate and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of
    which is attached with your request, matches the information contained in
    the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, on file with
    the State of Hawaii Department of Health.”–Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., State Registrar, May 31, 2012

  132. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2016 at 3:56 pm #

    Joey: The Certified Letter of Verification for Barack Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth that was prepared for U.S. District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate in the Mississippi eligibility challenge filed by Orly Taitz, states:
    “The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at
    http://www . whitehouse. gov/blog/20 11/04/27 /president-obamas-Iong-form-
    birth-certificate and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of
    which is attached with your request, matches the information contained in
    the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, on file with
    the State of Hawaii Department of Health.”–Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., State Registrar, May 31, 2012

    jack will then argue that the information on file is wrong. But when the information came from a hospital and was signed by a doctor, the date, time and place of birth are correct. The only thing that could be wrong is the identity of the father, which is the one fact the hospital does not verify. So jack’s entire argument essentially comes down to Barack Sr. isn’t the father. I think that is unlikely for many reasons, but even if it were true, it’s quite irrelevant.

  133. avatar
    bob August 18, 2016 at 4:24 pm #

    Scientist: jack will then argue that the information on file is wrong. But when the information came from a hospital and was signed by a doctor, the date, time and place of birth are correct. The only thing that could be wrong is the identity of the father, which is the one fact the hospital does not verify.

    I think jack would argue that the State of Hawaii can only attest to the contents of its own records, and not the correctness of its own records. A “concern” that could be raised for literally every birth certificate ever issued. Yet, for some reason, jack is concerned with only one particular birth certificate, despite the lack of any admissible evidence that its contents do not match the actual birth records.

  134. avatar
    trader jack August 18, 2016 at 4:41 pm #

    Rickey: As Doc has noted, Obama’s birth certificate is dated four days after his birth, and nowhere is it identified as being amended, altered or changed, so your point has no relevance to this discussion.

    And you avoided answering my question. What proof would satisfy you that the informationon Obama’s LFBC is accurate?

    I do not doubt that the information on the LFBC is correct on the certified copy, as
    that just means that there is a document filed that has that information on it.

    What the birth record says may, or may not say, be completely different.

  135. avatar
    Joey August 18, 2016 at 4:43 pm #

    Scientist: jack will then argue that the information on file is wrong.But when the information came from a hospital and was signed by a doctor, the date, time and place of birth are correct.The only thing that could be wrong is the identity of the father, which is the one fact the hospital does not verify.So jack’s entire argument essentially comes down to Barack Sr. isn’t the father.I think that is unlikely for many reasons, but even if it were true, it’s quite irrelevant.

    Trader Jack can argue whatever he wants. I was only addressing his factually inaccurate statement that the certified copy of the President’s birth certificate has not been officially authenticated as identical to the original, vault edition Certificate of Live Birth.
    The fact that Trader Jack didn’t have a clue speaks to his lack of credibility as any kind of knowledgeable person on the eligibility discussion.
    The Obama birth certificate verifies the President’s age and his place of birth. The state of Hawaii stands behind that data.

  136. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2016 at 4:51 pm #

    Since the long form is a certified copy of a record generated by Kapi’olani hospital, it is in fact a birth record, and so I fail to understand what point you are trying to make.

    trader jack: What the birth record says may, or may not say, be completely different.

  137. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG. August 18, 2016 at 4:56 pm #

    If he’s as old as he claims to be, trader jack is living proof that age, isn’t necessarily an indication of wisdom. I just see a doddering old fool talking out his ass.

  138. avatar
    trader jack August 18, 2016 at 4:58 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The “current document” as indicated by the certified copy is dated August 8, 1961, so that indicates that the current document has been current since 4 days after Obama’s birth until the long form was published in 2011.

    So while I understand what you are saying, I can see no application.

    trader jack: It is just a copy of what is on record that is current at the time of copying.

    Why thank you. Dr. C.

    Oh, hell, I know it looks like nit-picking, but ever since I saw that BustamanteXlll court case and I saw how a person could get a birth certificate, passport, and after a trial on those cases spend time in jail, get out and get another birth certificate, certified, get caught again, my beliefs on the security of the systems changed.

    And reading some of the other court cases in divorces, paternity suits, etc. I realized that the information is not written down by God, but must be considered as fallible.

    Some people don’t want to believe that the records are not perfect, and subject to abuse if necessary.

    I don’t know that the Kenyan one is fake or real, or that the HDOH one is fake or real, but I think that both should be considered in the same light as being certified copies that may be fake or real.

    And that would be a problem if that could be determined.

    And I don’t know if any of the media can be believed when reporting on these sorts of things

    Just look at what is coming out on the emails and from the hackers

    Perhaps that will solve the problems. LOL

  139. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2016 at 5:01 pm #

    bob: I think jack would argue that the State of Hawaii can only attest to the contents of its own records, and not the correctness of its own records.

    The hospital attested to the correctness when they sent the data to the state.

    trader jack: What the birth record says may, or may not say, be completely different.

    The birth record came from the hospital. Is your position that the hospital would say a birth occurred there when it didn’t. Why would they do so? You can’t just say, “they could have” without providing a motive for them to risk being shut down in order to have lied about a birth back in 1961 for someone who was nobody special at that time.

    The only thing on the form that the hospital might be wrong on is the father, since they accept the mother’s word on that. Everything else IS the birth record.

  140. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2016 at 5:02 pm #

    There is fraud in birth certificates, but for hospital-submitted birth certificates, fraud is virtually unheard of. You get fraud with home births, or late-filed certificates, but not from the ones from hospitals.

    trader jack: Oh, hell, I know it looks like nit-picking, but ever since I saw that BustamanteXlll court case and I saw how a person could get a birth certificate, passport, and after a trial on those cases spend time in jail, get out and get another birth certificate, certified, get caught again, my beliefs on the security of the systems changed.

  141. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2016 at 5:07 pm #

    trader jack: I don’t know that the Kenyan one is fake or real, or that the HDOH one is fake or real, but I think that both should be considered in the same light as being certified copies that may be fake or real.

    Both are real pieces of paper. Explain how and why Mrs. Obama got to Kenya to give birth in Mombassa.

    You can’t take papers in a vacuum. If I have 2 pieces of paper, one claiming you beat Usain Bolt at 100 meters and one claiming you didn’t, I know which one I will believe and it will have nothing to do with the fonts used.

  142. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2016 at 5:21 pm #

    trader jack: Oh, hell, I know it looks like nit-picking, but ever since I saw that BustamanteXlll court case

    I read the Bustamante case. The matter was settled by looking at evidence outside of the certificates themselves. Let’s do that in Obama’s case:

    1. Mother lived in Hawaii in the period prior to and at the time of birth
    2. Travel to Kenya was arduous and expensive in those days
    3. Father was in Hawaii in summer session at U of H when the birth occurred. Therefore mother would have had to travel without him to visit HIS relatives (an unlikely scenario to say the least)
    4. No evidence mother ever entered Kenya
    5. Purported birth is in Mombasa, which is at least a day’s journey from where relatives lived.

    The evidence outside the certificates says the birth occurred in Hawaii.

    Case closed. jack loses….

  143. avatar
    Joey August 18, 2016 at 5:49 pm #

    Can you spell ” corroboration,” boys and girls?
    Newspaper reporter Will Hoover, wrote a story for the Honolulu Advertiser on Nov. 9, 2008, about Obama’s childhood years Hawaii entitled: “Obama Slept Here.”

    In researching the story, he went to the microfilm archives and found birth announcements for Barack Obama. One was in the Honululu Advertiser on Aug. 13 , 1961, and the other was in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin the next day, August 14, 1961. They both said the same thing: “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4.”

    Newspaper officials that Will Hoover checked with confirmed that those notices came directly from the state Department of Health. They are placed in a section of the newspaper called “Health Bureau Statistics” which includes birth, death and marriage data.

    “That’s not the kind of stuff a family member calls in and says, ‘Hey, can you put this in?'” Hoover explained.

    In order to publish phony notices, it would have required the complicity of the state Health Department and two independent newspapers—on the off chance this unnamed child might want to one day, at least 35 years later, become president of the United States.

  144. avatar
    trader jack August 18, 2016 at 6:12 pm #

    Scientist: The hospital attested to the correctness when they sent the data to the state.

    I believe you are in error, as there is nothing that shows the Hospital attested to anything. The birth mother confirmed the information, and the doctor attested to the birth of the child.

  145. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2016 at 6:15 pm #

    If you can’t figure that out for yourself, then I don’t think that anyone here can help you. The truth is out there.

    trader jack: I don’t know that the Kenyan one is fake or real, or that the HDOH one is fake or real

  146. avatar
    trader jack August 18, 2016 at 6:29 pm #

    Joey: In researching the story, he went to the microfilm archives and found birth announcements for Barack Obama. One was in the Honululu Advertiser on Aug. 13 , 1961, and the other was in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin the next day, August 14, 1961. They both said the same thing: “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, son, Aug. 4.”

    No record in public records that they ever lived there, is there?

    You do realize the cuttings of paper information are not acceptable evidence of facts, unless you can present the entire paper to verify it was in the paper at all

    Have you ever seen a full page of that newspaper confirming the birth information?

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2016 at 6:33 pm #

    The hospital filed the birth certificate. That’s how these things work.

    trader jack: I believe you are in error, as there is nothing that shows the Hospital attested to anything.

  148. avatar
    trader jack August 18, 2016 at 6:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    If you can’t figure that out for yourself, then I don’t think that anyone here can help you. The truth is out there.

    That is one of the troubles of this sort of thing.

    Would you, under oath in court, swear that you know that LDS forged that document by his own efforts?

    I could not do that, nor could I swear under oath , that is a fake, and not just my opinion that it is true or fake.

    And , I could not do the same for HDOH bc , either. I just don’t know!

  149. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2016 at 6:36 pm #

    Actually there is. Hint, use this site’s search box. Try some word, I don’t know, maybe “Kalanianaole.”

    trader jack: No record in public records that they ever lived there, is there?

  150. avatar
    trader jack August 18, 2016 at 6:40 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The hospital filed the birth certificate. That’s how these things work.

    Of course they submitted to the local registrar, who then submitted it to the agency, who then had the registrar say it was accepted, or filed, or returned for correction.

    None of them verified anything about the information, otherwise there would not have the need to be able to correct, amend , or alter the accepted and filed birth record

  151. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2016 at 6:43 pm #

    I cannot testify to anything because I have no first-hand knowledge of Smith’s actions, and anything that I could say about the certificate itself would be a conclusion, and people don’t get to testify to their conclusions unless they are experts.

    However, if I were prosecuting a case that required impeaching the Smith certificate, I could do so with ease using the available evidence.

    You refuse to draw conclusions from the evidence, but rather play word games.

    trader jack: Would you, under oath in court, swear that you know that LDS forged that document by his own efforts?

  152. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2016 at 6:46 pm #

    trader jack: I believe you are in error, as there is nothing that shows the Hospital attested to anything. The birth mother confirmed the information, and the doctor attested to the birth of the child.

    The only thing the mother attests to are her name address and the identity of the father. The doctor attests to time, date and place of birth, which are the key data for citizenship. If you wish to claim the doctor falsely attested, you need to explain why he would do so, when being caught would result in loss of his medical license and possible jail time. This isn’t insurance fraud where the doctor can make big money; the doctor gets nada for filling in a false place of birth. And the paper goes through the hospital administration, not directly from the doctor to the state.

    Your argument is ridiculous,

    Now address the paper showing you beat Bolt in the 100m. Should I give that weight because it’s a piece of paper?

    Also please provide evidence you are 93 years old. I think you are a liar.

  153. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2016 at 6:47 pm #

    trader jack: Would you, under oath in court, swear that you know that LDS forged that document by his own efforts?

    I couldn’t swear under oath that you did not kill JFK. Therefore you did, right?

  154. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2016 at 7:23 pm #

    So you are suggesting that hospital filed a certificate of birth with a state agency for a birth that didn’t occur in their hospital?

    I’m not going to play your games any more.

    trader jack: Of course they submitted to the local registrar, who then submitted it to the agency, who then had the registrar say it was accepted, or filed, or returned for correction.

  155. avatar
    trader jack August 18, 2016 at 7:23 pm #

    “Notably, Obama Sr.’s 11th Avenue address listed in the 1960-1961 and 1961-1962 Honolulu Polk directories doesn’t appear in any of Obama Sr.’s INS files, which listed four Honolulu addresses: 1810 University Ave., 2036 Round Top Terrace, 1704 Punahou St., and 1482 Alencastre St. Therefore, the authenticity of Obama Sr.’s INS files – which sat in Sally Jacobs’s desk for almost two years before being released to the public in 2011 – needs to be questioned.”

    Doesn’t look like he lived with her anywhere.

  156. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 18, 2016 at 7:27 pm #

    The doctor was required by law to fill out and sign the parts of the affidavit he filled out and signed, and by doing that he was effectively stating that it was true to his best belief and knowledge, and he was in essence doing it on behalf of the hospital as he was the individual authorized to complete the affidavit and sign it. So the birth part of the affidavit is documented by someone in a position of having to by law make that declaration.

  157. avatar
    trader jack August 18, 2016 at 7:30 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    So you are suggesting that hospital filed a certificate of birth with a state agency for a birth that didn’t occur in their hospital?

    I’m not going to play your games any more.

    As a birth certificate expert, Doc, then you know that a child born in a conveyance is given a birth record from the birthing center which received the baby after the birth in a conveyance,

    I do not claim that happened in this case , but it can happen, cant it?

    Not a game at all.

    c

  158. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2016 at 7:34 pm #

    trader jack: Doesn’t look like he lived with her anywhere.

    What difference does that make?

    Your case seems to be that there was no real marriage, yet she dragged herself to Kenya, 8 months pregnant, to see his relatives. That’s absurd, as are you.

  159. avatar
    trader jack August 18, 2016 at 7:39 pm #

    Notorial Dissent:
    The doctor was required by law to fill out and sign the parts of the affidavit he filled out and signed, and by doing that he was effectively stating that it was true to his best belief and knowledge, and he was in essence doing it on behalf of the hospital as he was the individual authorized to complete the affidavit and sign it.So the birth part of the affidavit is documented by someone in a position of having to by law make that declaration.

    I hate it when you fail to note that he only attested to the parts he filled out which simply consists of his name. And he only attested to the date and hour of birth, nothing else, and that the baby was born alive
    From where do you find the rest of your statement to be true?

  160. avatar
    trader jack August 18, 2016 at 7:42 pm #

    Scientist: What difference does that make?

    Yourcase seems to be that there was no real marriage, yet she dragged herself to Kenya, 8 months pregnant, to see his relatives. That’s absurd, as are you.

    I have never claimed that she went to Kenya, I stated that it was reported that a Honolulu female went to Kenya under the transfer program of transfer students.

    I don’t know where she was when she was 8 months pregnant, whether she was in
    Washington state, Hawaii, or Kenya, I have no knowledge about her during her pregnancy

  161. avatar
    trader jack August 18, 2016 at 7:45 pm #

    Scientist: I couldn’t swear under oath that you did not kill JFK.Therefore you did, right?

    That is right because you don’t know whether I did or not. I am old enough to have done it, but that means nothing as so were a lot of people

  162. avatar
    bob August 18, 2016 at 7:49 pm #

    trader jack: Some people don’t want to believe that the records are not perfect, and subject to abuse if necessary.

    No one is asserting that record fraud doesn’t exist. There is simply no evidence of record fraud with respect to President Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate.

    I think that both should be considered in the same light as being certified copies that may be fake or real.

    Your thinking is contrary to both the law and common sense, but you have the freedom to be wrong.

  163. avatar
    Joey August 18, 2016 at 7:51 pm #

    trader jack:
    “Notably, Obama Sr.’s 11th Avenue address listed in the 1960-1961 and 1961-1962 Honolulu Polk directories doesn’t appear in any of Obama Sr.’s INS files, which listed four Honolulu addresses: 1810 University Ave., 2036 Round Top Terrace, 1704 Punahou St., and 1482 Alencastre St.Therefore, the authenticity of Obama Sr.’s INS files – which sat in Sally Jacobs’s desk for almost two years before being released to the public in 2011 – needs to be questioned.”

    Doesn’t look like he lived with her anywhere.

    Is there a constitutional requirement concerning where a presidential candidate or a president lived as an infant?
    He went to Noelani elementary and the Punahou School.

  164. avatar
    trader jack August 18, 2016 at 7:51 pm #

    Rickey: As Doc has noted, Obama’s birth certificate is dated four days after his birth, and nowhere is it identified as being amended, altered or changed, so your point has no relevance to this discussion.
    And you avoided answering my question. What proof would satisfy you that the information on Obama’s LFBC is accurate?

    The problem with your question is that with a copy of the LFBC is that it can be run through a XEROX or other editing printer and come out looking the way it is with different information is the contents

    We used to do with whiteout and retyping and then copying, but it is a lot easier now.

    One of our agents got fired for doing just that with applications to establish a filing date.

  165. avatar
    Joey August 18, 2016 at 8:01 pm #

    trader jack: No record in public records that they ever lived there, is there?

    You do realize the cuttings of paper information are not acceptable evidence of facts, unless you can present the entire paper to verify it was in the paper atall

    Have you ever seen a full page of that newspaper confirming the birth information?

    There are two newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
    Yes, I’ve seen copies of the two ENTIRE newspaper pages. They’ve been available for viewing on the Internet for eight years now.
    Trader Jack really is quite ignorant of any and all facts that disprove whatever is his latest silly conspiracy theory of the moment.
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

  166. avatar
    trader jack August 18, 2016 at 8:01 pm #

    Scientist: The only thing the mother attests to are her name address and the identity of the father.The doctor attests to time, date and place of birth, which are the key data for citizenship.If you wish to claim the doctor falsely attested, you need to explain why he would do so, when being caught would result in loss of his medical license and possible jail time.This isn’t insurance fraud where the doctor can make big money; the doctor gets nada for filling in a false place of birth.And the paper goes through the hospital administration, not directly from the doctor to the state.

    Your argument is ridiculous,

    Now address the paper showing you beat Bolt in the 100m.Should I give that weight because it’s a piece of paper?

    Also please provide evidence you are 93 years old.I think you are a liar.

    as a human being , I am liar by birth, as are all human beings.

    As you don’t believe the evidence I do produce, you don’t believe it, so why would you believe something you don’t want to believe.

    bob: No one is asserting that record fraud doesn’t exist. There is simply no evidence of record fraud with respect to President Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate.

    ar by birth, as to my age, but you can not point out a lie I made on this site, can you?

  167. avatar
    trader jack August 18, 2016 at 8:05 pm #

    Scientist: The doctor attests to time, date and place of birth, which are the key data for citizenship.”

    the key datum is parentage, and being subject to the jurisdiction of the country

  168. avatar
    Joey August 18, 2016 at 8:13 pm #

    trader jack: Of course they submitted to the local registrar, who then submitted it to the agency, who then had the registrar say it was accepted, or filed,or returned for correction.

    None of them verified anything about the information, otherwise there would not have the need to be able to correct, amend , or alter the accepted and filed birth record

    What Trader Jack has just described is the documentation process used for every hospital generated birth certificate ever recorded in the state of Hawaii.
    There could be a typo on a birth certificate that needed changing, or the parents could decide on a different name for the child. That doesn’t alter the date of birth and the place of birth under Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
    As has been pointed out previously, there is no record of there ever being any amendment to the August 8, 1961 Obama birth certificate.

  169. avatar
    Joey August 18, 2016 at 8:30 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Actually there is. Hint, use this site’s search box. Try some word, I don’t know, maybe “Kalanianaole.”

    How many times can Trader Jack be wrong on the facts in one day? Yikes! Why anyone would take any of his wrongheaded assertions seriously is beyond my comprehension.

  170. avatar
    Northland10 August 18, 2016 at 8:36 pm #

    Joey: How many times can Trader Jack be wrong on the facts in one day? Yikes! Why anyone would take any of his wrongheaded assertions seriously is beyond my comprehension.

    I don’t. He’s a troll. I have played around a few times to amuse myself but I have figured he a troll or amazingly thick. I had to suggest amazingly thick because, when gauging how idiotic Birthers can be, they have consistently proven me wrong.

  171. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2016 at 8:46 pm #

    Troller Jack has 7 new posts. I only read one, and I’m not replying to that one.

    Northland10: I don’t. He’s a troll.

  172. avatar
    Keith August 18, 2016 at 9:10 pm #

    Internet trools everywhere are really doubling down (or quadrupling down or more) on a pedantic and complete misunderstanding of the idea of “empirical evidence”.

    Jack says “You weren’t there, so how do you know anybody told the truth about Obama’s birth, or that the document on file hasn’t been nefariously altered, or whatever – we need empirical evidence people.”

    One of Trump’s top advisors is alleged to have said “The holocaust could not have taken place, the oven’s are too small” (or words to that effect). Where is the empiracal evidence for the Shoah?

    Just the other day a creationist, demanding “empirical evidence” for evolution, was confronted with the (admittedly simple) answer: “There used to be Tyrannosaurus Rex; now there isn’t. There used to not be chickens; now there are.” His response: “so where is the empirical evidence”.

    Trools can use this simple formula to ‘advance’ their arguments ad infinitum. Like a child asking “Why?’ to every statement an adult says, they just need to deny that whatever evidence is offered and continue to demand a ‘responsive’ reply.

    A formal description of the problem, I suggest, revolves around a particularly curly logical fallacy known as “Argumentum ad lapidem” (appeal to the stone) made famous by Dr. Samuel Johnson who, in order to refute the idea of ‘immaterialism’ (that there are no material objects, only minds and ideas in those minds) kicked a stone and said ‘I refute it thus’. It has been pointed out that Dr. Johnson’s kick did not refute the idea of immaterialism since clearly, his foot and the rock and the stubbed toe and indeed, Dr. Johnson himself, could be ‘merely’ a set of ideas in the mind. Thus there can be no ’empirical’ evidence, only speculation, and an infinite regression of all speculation is therefore equal. The thought disturbed Rene DesCarte so much that he had to go back to “Cogito Ergo Sum”.

    Which is all well and good in the realm of philosophy and argument (mostly for the sake of argument alone). But in the everyday world of existence as we experience it, Dr. Johnson’s toe probably hurt him for hours, maybe days. Fossilized Tyrannosaurus Rex bones do exist. Chickens do exist. Even if these objects are all just ideas held in the mind, we EXPERIENCE them as objects in the real world.

    Even if we didn’t personally witness and count 6 million people going through the death camps (and there were more ways to kill people that gas chambers), their bones and their histories, the testimony of survivors, the documentation of the perpetrators, and the reports of liberators all tell us that 6 million is an underestimate of an event that actually took place.

    To continue to argue facts with Jack is pointless, he is not arguing facts. To continue to argue reason with Jack is pointless, he is not arguing reason. To continue to argue law with Jack is pointless, he is not arguing law. To continue to argue from a sane point of view with Jack is pointless, he is not arguing from a sane point of view.

    Jack is arguing for the sake of argumentation. Nothing more and nothing less.

    I am convinced that Jack is locked in the Internet Troolympics ™ Gold Medal Contest in “insane refusal to engage in reasonable discussion” with Raggedyman (who is a similar kind of Trool on Above Top Secret). I don’t know who might be on the judging panel for such an award, but I can imagine a “Star Chamber” of eminent Trool Artistes lurking in the background.

    In Jack’s world he seems to follow the opposite of DesCartes’ ideas: “I refuse to think, therefore that’s all that counts”.

  173. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 18, 2016 at 9:24 pm #

    trader jack: Doesn’t look like he lived with her anywhere.

    —-

    You’re just being a busybody. Evidently, you’d prefer our President wasn’t our President. So what. He’s an American born to an American woman in Hawaii, and whether they lived with his father is really none of your beeswax. Deal with it.

  174. avatar
    bob August 18, 2016 at 9:48 pm #

    trader jack: the key datum is parentage, and being subject to the jurisdiction of the country

    The key datum is birth in the United States, which is sufficient for President Obama because he was born in Hawaii.

  175. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2016 at 9:55 pm #

    trader jack: the key datum is parentage, and being subject to the jurisdiction of the country

    Well, that’s an even dumber argument than your other ones, and that’s saying something.

    And you aren’t 93.

    THE END

  176. avatar
    Joey August 18, 2016 at 10:08 pm #

    trader jack: The problem with your question is that with a copy of the LFBC is that it can be run through a XEROX or other editing printer and come out looking the way it is with different information is the contents

    We used to do with whiteout and retyping and then copying, but it is a lot easier now.

    One of our agents got fired for doing just that with applications to establish a filing date.

    The state of Hawaii has confirmed that the data on the whitehouse.gov copy matches the data on the original. The only copy that has ever been introduced into evidence in a court of law is the whitehouse.gov copy and the data on that copy been verified as matching the original as far as the data is concerned.

  177. avatar
    Rickey August 18, 2016 at 11:39 pm #

    Joey: I was born 20 miles from Times Square but not within the New York City limits. My birth certificate was issued by Westchester County.

    I was born at Northern Westchester Hospital in Mount Kisco.

  178. avatar
    bob August 18, 2016 at 11:45 pm #

    trader jack: but you can not point out a lie I made on this site, can you?

    You keep saying that Hawaii’s birth certificate and Smith’s paper are comparable. They are not. To say they are is a lie.

  179. avatar
    Rickey August 18, 2016 at 11:55 pm #

    Trader Jack is a denialist.

    In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person’s choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of an historical experience or event, by the person refusing to accept an empirically verifiable reality.

    Trader Jack probably can’t accept the fact that we have a black president, so he has to keep raising irrational objections to verified facts. Although he is not quite as irrational as Nancy Ruth Owens, arguing with him is as pointless as arguing with her or with Cody Robert Judy.

  180. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 19, 2016 at 2:35 am #

    trader jack: the key datum is parentage, and being subject to the jurisdiction of the country

    Hate to tell you this, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that even Illegal Aliens, even, are subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States. So, why would an legal alien, lawfully admitted to the United States not be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States?

  181. avatar
    Joey August 19, 2016 at 4:26 am #

    Rickey: I was born at Northern Westchester Hospital in Mount Kisco.

    New Rochelle Hospital for me. Graduated from Pelham High School.

  182. avatar
    Scientist August 19, 2016 at 6:00 am #

    trader jack: the key datum is parentage

    If, as you claim, all data on birth certificates is potentially false, then how would we know anyone’s parentage with any certainty? In fact, of all the data on birth certificates, the one that is unverified and most likely to be false is the identity of the father.

  183. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 19, 2016 at 11:12 am #

    trader jack: As you don’t believe the evidence I do produce, you don’t believe it, so why would you believe something you don’t want to believe.

    You’ve never produced anything but silly trolling. But since birth certificates aren’t valid to Jack any birth certificate you produce for us cannot be verified as being accurate.

  184. avatar
    trader jack August 19, 2016 at 12:49 pm #

    Joey: As has been pointed out previously, there is no record of there ever being any amendment to the August 8, 1961 Obama birth certificate

    Now how on earth can you believe that when the records are not available to the public?

    Joey: Yes, I’ve seen copies of the two ENTIRE newspaper pages. They’ve been available for viewing on the Internet for eight years now.

    Your referenced site shows two clipped pages of the newspaper!

  185. avatar
    trader jack August 19, 2016 at 12:54 pm #

    Keith: Jack says “You weren’t there, so how do you know anybody told the truth about Obama’s birth, or that the document on file hasn’t been nefariously altered, or whatever – we need empirical evidence people.”

    Now you could not be talking about trader jack, because that quotation you used in a true quotation of my statements!

  186. avatar
    trader jack August 19, 2016 at 1:01 pm #

    bob: The key datum is birth in the United States, which is sufficient for President Obama because he was born in Hawaii.

    look , folks, I am just trying to point out your errors in thinking or knowledge.

    For instance, the statement in the quote is wrong, because, believe it or not, you don’t have to be born in the United State, but if your are born in the United States to an official of another country, you can not run for President.

  187. avatar
    trader jack August 19, 2016 at 1:05 pm #

    bob: You keep saying that Hawaii’s birth certificate and Smith’s paper are comparable. They are not. To say they are is a lie.

    You are comparing them when you make the statement, so how could my statement be a lie?

    accuracy , and truthfulness in comments is a benefit to the country.

  188. avatar
    trader jack August 19, 2016 at 1:09 pm #

    Rickey:
    Trader Jack is a denialist.

    In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person’s choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of an historical experience or event, by the person refusing to accept an empirically verifiable reality.

    Trader Jack probably can’t accept the fact that we have a black president, so he has to keep raising irrational objections to verified facts. Although he is not quite as irrational as Nancy Ruth Owens, arguing with him is as pointless as arguing with her or with Cody Robert Judy.

    I am not arguing, I am pointing our that some of the statement that are made here are incorrect , and showing that they are incorrect.

    If you would prefer to not be corrected, that is ok with me.

  189. avatar
    Joey August 19, 2016 at 1:28 pm #

    Some birthers have “theorized” that either Frank Marshall Davis or (ne’e) Malcolm Little (Malcolm X) could be Barack Obama’s “real” father. Those gentlemen were born in Kansas and Nebraska respectively.
    Without DNA evidence or an eyewitness to conception, the identity of a father is always speculative. (eg Mary of Nazareth and Joseph).
    The names of the parents listed on a birth certificate that is signed and sealed have the presumption of accuracy in the absence of probative evidence to the contrary. Courts of law have ruled definitively that probative evidence to the contrary has not been uncovered in adjudicated challenges to the birth records of Barack Obama.

  190. avatar
    JD Reed August 19, 2016 at 2:04 pm #

    Trader, your assertion that Lucas Smith’s document should be given equal weight to that of the HDOH’s raises a question that I challenge you to answer:
    Do you acknowledge the possibility that Lucas Smith’s BC is a forgery and thus fraudulent?

  191. avatar
    Joey August 19, 2016 at 3:46 pm #

    JD Reed:
    Trader, your assertion that Lucas Smith’s document should be given equal weight to that of the HDOH’s raises a question that I challenge you to answer:
    Do you acknowledge the possibility that Lucas Smith’s BC is a forgery and thus fraudulent?

    Here’s a follow up question for Trader Jack. In the seven years since the Kenyan “birth certificate” appeared for sale on Ebay, there have been literally hundreds of court actions that have challenged Barack Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen. Why hasn’t the Lucas D. Smith Kenyan “birth certificate” been introduced as evidence in any of them?

  192. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 19, 2016 at 5:52 pm #

    It wasn’t introduced into evidence, but it did appear as one of Orly Taitz’s exhibits in a complaint along with the Obot punk the birthers “Bomford” certificate.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/latest-filings-in-barnett-v-obama/

    Joey: Why hasn’t the Lucas D. Smith Kenyan “birth certificate” been introduced as evidence in any of them?

  193. avatar
    Arthur B. August 19, 2016 at 6:04 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    It wasn’t introduced into evidence, but it did appear as one of Orly Taitz’s exhibits in a complaint along with the Obot punk the birthers “Bomford” certificate.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/latest-filings-in-barnett-v-obama/

    I haven’t been able to find a cite, but I seem to remember that Judge Carter commented on the certificate, something to the effect of how, even if it managed to surmount the admissibility hurdles, it is well understood that the domestic document would a priori be given precedence over the foreign one.

  194. avatar
    bob August 19, 2016 at 6:17 pm #

    trader jack: For instance, the statement in the quote is wrong, because, believe it or not,you don’t have to be born in the United State, but if your are born in the United States to an official of another country, you can not run for President.

    Your first lie: I never said that birth in the United States was required for natural-born citizenship, and no one but no one has suggested that President Obama was born to an ambassador.

    trader jack: You are comparing them when you make the statement, so how could my statement be a lie?

    Your second lie: I never said they were comparable. “Comparing” and “comparable” have different meanings.

    Your ongoing lie: saying that Hawaii’s birth certificate and Smith’s document are comparable is a lie.

    Do you have any more lies to peddle?

  195. avatar
    Scientist August 19, 2016 at 6:52 pm #

    jack-You didn’t answer my question. You claim parentage is key, yet you also claim birth certificates, which are generally how parentage is determined are not trustworthy. Are you now proposing all presidential candidates be DNA tested? And since their parents are often deceased, the results might be inconclusive anyway.

  196. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 19, 2016 at 6:53 pm #

    trader jack: look , folks, I am just trying to point out your errors in thinking or knowledge.

    For instance, the statement in the quote is wrong, because, believe it or not,you don’t have to be born in the United State, but if your are born in the United States to an official of another country, you can not run for President.

    So, tell me this: Was Barack Obama Sr. an official from another country? Stanley Ann Dunham was obviously not an official from another country, since she was an U.S. Citizen, along with her parents, and ancestors going back to the Revolutionary War (she actually has common ancestors with Dick Cheney). So, it must be Barack Hussein Obama Sr. that must be the official from another country. Of course, for your argument to be valid, Barack Obama must actually have diplomatic immunity for the parentage to apply. So, did Barack Obama have diplomatic immunity when Barack Obama was born? Yes, or No. It’s a simple question. If the answer is yes, then Barack Obama (being the family member of someone with diplomatic immunity) might not be under the jurisdiction. However, if the answer is no, then it doesn’t matter anything else about the father.

    So, make your argument. Is your argument that Barack Obama Sr. had diplomatic immunity?

    If he wasn’t born to an official from another country, that is the only reason why his parentage would matter.

  197. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 19, 2016 at 6:56 pm #

    Scientist: And since their parents are often deceased, the results might be inconclusive anyway.

    And what happens to people like Leslie Lynch King, and William Jefferson Blythe? Do they all of a sudden become ineligible for the Presidency, because they were adopted by their fathers, rather than having a blood relationship?

  198. avatar
    trader jack August 19, 2016 at 7:26 pm #

    JD Reed:
    Trader, your assertion that Lucas Smith’s document should be given equal weight to that of the HDOH’s raises a question that I challenge you to answer:
    Do you acknowledge the possibility that Lucas Smith’s BC is a forgery and thus fraudulent?

    Just as I acknowledge that the birth certificate bho might possibly be forged , or In error

    Why must you believe one or the other is true or false without letting a court decide the matter?

  199. avatar
    trader jack August 19, 2016 at 7:30 pm #

    Joey:

    The names of the parents listed on a birth certificate that is signed and sealed have the presumption of accuracy in the absence of probative evidence to the contrary. Courts of law have ruled definitively that probative evidence to the contrary has not been uncovered in adjudicated challenges to the birth records of Barack Obama.

    The courts have held, in the face to probative evidence that the named parent could not have been the father, that the naming of the father on the birth certificate is putative evidence of the father being the man named on the birth reoord.

  200. avatar
    trader jack August 19, 2016 at 7:39 pm #

    Joey: Here’s a follow up question for Trader Jack.In the seven years since the Kenyan “birth certificate” appeared for sale on Ebay, there have been literally hundreds of court actions that have challenged Barack Obama’s eligibility as a natural born citizen. Why hasn’t the Lucas D. Smith Kenyan “birth certificate” been introduced as evidence in any of them?

    Ok, here is the reason I believe that it has not been entered. True or false , it is the reason that I think it has not been answered.

    Kenya is not party to the treaty governing apostiles, and they have to be secured, in the US, by going to the Kenyan consulate and requesting authentication of the document.

    Even if you get an apostile it will specifically state that it does not guarantee the legality or the facts of the document, but simply state that the document was signed by the appropriate party , and that the proper party for the signature was the person signing the apostille.

    And the court would say we have to see the original document and have it authenticated and submitted to the court by the consulate

    I may be in error , but I think that is the reason

  201. avatar
    Joey August 19, 2016 at 7:41 pm #

    dunstvangeet: So, tell me this: Was Barack Obama Sr. an official from another country?Stanley Ann Dunham was obviously not an official from another country, since she was an U.S. Citizen, along with her parents, and ancestors going back to the Revolutionary War (she actually has common ancestors with Dick Cheney).So, it must be Barack Hussein Obama Sr. that must be the official from another country.Of course, for your argument to be valid, Barack Obama must actually have diplomatic immunity for the parentage to apply.So, did Barack Obama have diplomatic immunity when Barack Obama was born?Yes, or No.It’s a simple question.If the answer is yes, then Barack Obama (being the family member of someone with diplomatic immunity) might not be under the jurisdiction.However, if the answer is no, then it doesn’t matter anything else about the father.

    So, make your argument.Is your argument that Barack Obama Sr. had diplomatic immunity?

    If he wasn’t born to an official from another country, that is the only reason why his parentage would matter.

    Thanks to a Birther-initiated Freedom of Information Act request, we know that Barack Hussein Obama Senior was in the United States on a STUDENT visa, not a diplomatc visa.

  202. avatar
    trader jack August 19, 2016 at 8:04 pm #

    bob: The key datum is birth in the United States, which is sufficient for President Obama because he was born in Hawaii.

    datum is singular, key datum indicates the most important piece of the data.
    Key datum is citizenship of parent.

    dunstvangeet: Hate to tell you this, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that even Illegal Aliens, even, are subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.So, why would an legal alien, lawfully admitted to the United States not be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States?

    He is a commissioned officer in the military of a foreign power, or a diplomat in the service of a foreign country assigned to the USA

  203. avatar
    trader jack August 19, 2016 at 8:25 pm #

    Joey: Thanks to a Birther-initiated Freedom of Information Act request, we know that Barack Hussein Obama Senior was in the United States on a STUDENT visa, not a diplomatc visa.

    Actually, BHO is simply BHO and not a senior, His son is BHO ll which indicates he was named after someone
    else.
    “•A man named after his grandfather, uncle, or cousin uses the suffix II, “the second.””

    He couldn’t have been in UH as a Senior unless he had already had a child named BHO, which is possible.

  204. avatar
    trader jack August 19, 2016 at 8:27 pm #

    dunstvangeet: And what happens to people like Leslie Lynch King, and William Jefferson Blythe?Do they all of a sudden become ineligible for the Presidency, because they were adopted by their fathers, rather than having a blood relationship?

    As Idon not know the true parents names and citizenship, I can not correctly answer that question

  205. avatar
    Dave B. August 19, 2016 at 9:51 pm #

    Not to detract the least bit from your point, but there are a couple of interesting (tangentially) related points– in the United States, current practice is to consider the child of a foreign diplomat (and not a non-diplomatic official, except for a visiting head of state) to have been born outside the United States, even if the other parent is a US citizen. In such a case, Sec. 301(g) of the INA would apply– the same paragraph that applied to Ted Cruz. What’s really weird is that under current practice, such a child who did not acquire US citizenship under Sec. 301(g) in spite of having a US citizen parent would automatically be granted permanent resident status in the United States as the US-born child of a foreign diplomat, and (I presume) because of that, would automatically acquire US citizenship under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. It would be interesting to see how that could play out in an eligibility setting.
    In Canada, federal law passed in 1977 extends the exception for a diplomatic officer to include a parent who is a “consular officer or other representative or employee in Canada of a foreign government”; that doesn’t apply when the other parent is a Canadian or lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence. But it DID apply in the case of the Vavilov brothers:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/07/discovered-our-parents-were-russian-spies-tim-alex-foley
    http://caselaw.canada.globe24h.com/0/0/federal/federal-court-of-canada/2015/08/2015fc960.shtml

    Which is really stretching the bounds of relevance– I just think it’s a really weird, interesting case.

    dunstvangeet: So, tell me this: Was Barack Obama Sr. an official from another country?Stanley Ann Dunham was obviously not an official from another country, since she was an U.S. Citizen, along with her parents, and ancestors going back to the Revolutionary War (she actually has common ancestors with Dick Cheney).So, it must be Barack Hussein Obama Sr. that must be the official from another country.Of course, for your argument to be valid, Barack Obama must actually have diplomatic immunity for the parentage to apply.So, did Barack Obama have diplomatic immunity when Barack Obama was born?Yes, or No.It’s a simple question.If the answer is yes, then Barack Obama (being the family member of someone with diplomatic immunity) might not be under the jurisdiction.However, if the answer is no, then it doesn’t matter anything else about the father.

    So, make your argument.Is your argument that Barack Obama Sr. had diplomatic immunity?

    If he wasn’t born to an official from another country, that is the only reason why his parentage would matter.

  206. avatar
    Rickey August 19, 2016 at 11:55 pm #

    trader jack:

    If you would prefer to not be corrected, that is ok with me.

    I am fine with being corrected by people who know what they are talking about, but that leaves you out.

  207. avatar
    Rickey August 20, 2016 at 12:00 am #

    Joey: New Rochelle Hospital for me. Graduated from Pelham High School.

    My mother went to the College of New Rochelle. I graduated from John Jay High School in Cross River.

  208. avatar
    Rickey August 20, 2016 at 12:12 am #

    trader jack: You are comparing them when you make the statement, so how could my statement be a lie?

    Lexicography lesson for Trader Jack.

    com·pare
    kəmˈper/
    verb
    1. estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between.

    com·pa·ra·ble
    kämp(ə)rəb(ə)l/
    adjective

    1. (of a person or thing) able to be likened to another; similar

    To put it into terms that you might be able to understand, you can compare two dissimilar things, but that does not make them comparable.

  209. avatar
    trader jack August 20, 2016 at 3:39 am #

    Rickey: Lexicography lesson for Trader Jack.

    com·pare
    kəmˈper/
    verb
    1.estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between.

    com·pa·ra·ble
    kämp(ə)rəb(ə)l/
    adjective

    1. (of a person or thing) able to be likened to another; similar

    To put it into terms that you might be able to understand, you can compare two dissimilar things, but that does not make them comparable.

    adjectives apply to subjects, verbs apply to actions.

    I am comparing the two documents, and the action makes them comparable.

    They are both certified copies of birth records, and are there fore comparable, and they can be compared to each other.
    A model T can be compared to a GT 40, or a horse and buggy, and they are comparable by being modes of transportation

    “comparable
    (Capable of comparison), adjective akin, alike, analagous, analogical, approximate, associated, close, cognate, commensurable, comparabilis, congeneric, correlative, homogeneous, homologous, kindred, like, much the same, parallel, related, resembling, similar

    comparable
    (Equivalent), adjective coequal, commensurate, equable, equal in value, equipollent, even, identical, interchangeable, matched, matching, on par, tantamount, undeviating, uniform, unvarying, without distinction
    See also: analogous, apposite, approximate, coequal, coextensive, cognate, commensurable, commensurate, comparative, correlative, equivalent, identical, proportionate, similar, tantamount
    Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

    Better check better sources for your information

    Never dispute a Cal Berkeley graduate,without having the same education. LOL

  210. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 20, 2016 at 2:31 pm #

    My son lives in New Rochelle.

    Rickey: New Rochelle

  211. avatar
    Joey August 20, 2016 at 7:42 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    My son lives in New Rochelle.

    Small world! I spent a week at the Residence Inn in New Rochelle at Easter.

  212. avatar
    Rickey August 20, 2016 at 8:49 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    My son lives in New Rochelle.

    If you come to New York for a visit we should try to put together an Obama Conspiracy Theories lunch or dinner for people in the area. I’m about an hour’s drive from New Rochelle.

  213. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 20, 2016 at 8:54 pm #

    Great idea. There is a small chance I will be in NY in the next couple of weeks.

    Rickey: If you come to New York for a visit we should try to put together an Obama Conspiracy Theories lunch or dinner for people in the area.

  214. avatar
    Joey August 21, 2016 at 12:44 am #

    trader jack: Ok, here is the reason I believe that it has not been entered.True or false , it is the reason that I think it has not been answered.

    Kenya is not party to the treaty governing apostiles, and they have to be secured, in the US, by going to the Kenyan consulate and requesting authentication of the document.

    Even if you get an apostile it will specifically state that it does not guarantee the legality or the facts of the document, but simply state that the document was signed by the appropriate party , and that the proper party for the signature was the person signing the apostille.

    And the court would say we have to see the original document and have it authenticated and submitted to the court by the consulate

    I may be in error , but I think that is the reason

    Here is the process for getting a Kenyan birth certficate legalized for introduction as evidence in a U.S. court.
    LEGALIZATION/APOSTILLE/AUTHENTICATION OF A DOCUMENT IN KENYA

    How to legalize documents/apostille for use in another country (e.g. in the US.)
    Kenya is not a signatory to the Hague Apostile Convention and therefore does not issue apostilles but rather legalization of documents is required.

    What is legalization? This is verification that an original document is legitimate and authentic for use in another country.

    Below the procedure for legalization of a document in Kenya;

    1. Present the document (s) that needs to be legalized and an identification card or passport to a Notary Public.

    2. The notary public will place a seal on the document and sign. Request to see that the Notary Public is admitted in Kenya and has a valid certificate.

    3. The notary public will be required to obtain a letter from the High Court of Kenya stating that he/she is recognized in Kenya as a notary public and for verification of the notary’s signature. The High Court officer will issue such a letter.

    4. The notarized documents is then taken to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for verification. The foreign affairs officer will then issue a letter. This should take at least 4 working days

    5. The notarized documents will then be taken to the Embassy e.g. if the document is to be used in the US, it will be taken to the US Embassy. This should take maximum 3-5 days depending on the Embassy procedures. Please NOTE that this varies from Embassy to Embassy.

    Note/ Please arrange to have your documents legalized as early as possible as time may vary from embassy to embassy.

    Birth Certificates- It is now required that birth certificates obtain certification from the Ministry of Interior, Civil Department before they are taken to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
    That is the procedure for getting a Kenyan birth certificate legalized by Kenya to be introduced as evidence in the U.S.

  215. avatar
    bob August 21, 2016 at 1:14 am #

    trader jack: I am comparing the two documents, and the action makes them comparable.

    Wrong yet again: comparing two dissimilar items does not make the two items comparable (alike, analagous, analogical, approximate, associated, close, cognate, commensurable, comparabilis, congeneric, correlative, homogeneous, homologous, kindred, like, much the same, parallel, related, resembling, similar).

    They are both certified copies of birth record

    You persist in this lie: Hawaii’s birth certificate is duly authenticated, and would be accepted by any U.S. court (or government agency); Smith’s document is not duly authenticated, and would not be accepted anywhere in the United States as a birth record.

    Never dispute a Cal Berkeley graduate

    There’s no evidence that you graduated from U.C. Berkeley.

  216. avatar
    trader jack August 21, 2016 at 4:12 am #

    bob: Wrong yet again: comparing two dissimilar items does not make the two items comparable (alike, analagous, analogical, approximate, associated, close, cognate, commensurable, comparabilis, congeneric, correlative, homogeneous, homologous, kindred, like, much the same, parallel, related, resembling, similar).

    You persist in this lie: Hawaii’s birth certificate is duly authenticated, and would be accepted by any U.S. court (or government agency); Smith’s document is not duly authenticated, and would not be accepted anywhere in the United States as a birth record.

    There’s no evidence that you graduated from U.C. Berkeley.

    HOley Gemoley, you really are set in your ways and views, aren’t you, youngster.

    Even using your definition, set forth above, you will note .that there are words in that list of words, like “kindred, related, similar” all of which can by used to describe the documents.

    And you can find no evidence that the HDOH has ever authenticated a birth certificate. let alone BHO ll’s.

    Both documents are shown as certified copies of the agency that is responsible for the issuance of birth certificates for the agency and LDS copy of the Kenyan birth certificate has a pen and ink signature and HDOH used a rubber stamp that is acceptable for Hawaiian courts but not for federal courts.

    Both should be considered to be true or false , depending upon your personal biases I don’t know whether either of them are true or false, but I do know that they appear to be certified by an agency

    And that is all that can be stated by people who have not made a decision because they have not seen the original.

    Read this, sonny!

    Certified copy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_copy

    Wikipedia

    A certified copy is a copy (often a photocopy) of a primary document, that has on it an endorsement or certificate that it is a true copy of the primary document. It does not certify that the primary document is genuine, only that it is a true copy of the primary document.

  217. avatar
    trader jack August 21, 2016 at 4:25 am #

    trader jack: You persist in this lie: Hawaii’s birth certificate is duly authenticated, and would be accepted by any U.S. court (or government agency);

    No doubt that you think that there is, somehow or other, something that makes a document admitted in court for evidence purposes a true and accurate document , that must be believed because it came from the government.

    “A few months later, Bustamante went to the U.S. Embassy
    in Manila and applied for a U.S. passport. He submitted a
    photocopy of his social security card, a photocopy of an old
    U.S. passport, and a Department of Veterans Affairs ID card.
    Bustamante received a passport and returned to the United
    States. After returning, Bustamante applied for social security
    benefits, submitting his passport and his delayed registration
    of birth from California as proof of citizenship. Bustamante’s
    application was denied, and he was arrested in July 2010 and
    charged with the present offenses of conviction”

    There was a man who had a US Passport , social security card, and id card, all of which where not good enough to keep him out of the hands of the US Government

  218. avatar
    Rickey August 21, 2016 at 12:18 pm #

    trader jack:

    I am comparing the two documents, and the action makes them comparable.

    No, the action has nothing to do with it. It is the intrinsic qualities of the two documents which determine whether they are comparable.

    To claim that Smith’s forgery is comparable to a certified birth certificate from the State of Hawaii is akin to saying that Monopoly money is comparable to real money.

    They are both certified copies of birth records

    No, they are not. Smith’s forgery has not been certified by anyone. It was purportedly signed and stamped by Dr. Helton Maganga, but that was one of Smith’s fatal records. For one thing, both the stamp and the signature misspell Dr. Maganga’s first name. It is HELTAN, not HELTON. Even if you might argue that someone made a mistake when creating his stamp, how do you explain that Dr. Maganga’s alleged signature misspells his first name?

    Second, the stamp and signature are dated February 19, 2009. Dr. Maganga did not become the Chief Administrator at Coast Province General Hospital until June 1, 2009.

    On the other hand, Obama’s long form birth certificate was signed by Alvin T. Onaka, Hawaii’s State Registrar, on April 25, 2011. Dr. Onaka was in fact the State Registrar on that date, and his name is spelled correctly.

    So the two documents are not comparable. Not even remotely comparable.

  219. avatar
    Arthur B. August 21, 2016 at 1:13 pm #

    Rickey: So the two documents are not comparable. Not even remotely comparable.

    And, to repeat a point I’ve made here several times before, federal law explicitly distinguishes between domestic documents and foreign documents. The Hawaiian document is self-authenticating and constitutes prima facie evidence; the purported Kenyan document is not even admissible.

  220. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 21, 2016 at 2:15 pm #

    trader jack: As Idon not know the true parents names and citizenship, I can not correctly answer that question

    William Jefferson Blythe’s true parents were Were Virginia Cassidy and Roger Clinton Sr. Those were the people who raised him. The fact that he was never blood related to Roger Clinton Sr. is of no material, as his biological father actually died 3 months before he died. What you’re saying under your insane argument is that someone who Bill Clinton never actually knew (who died in fact before Clinton was born) is so important to his upbringing that the founders actually wanted to bar him from being President if he wasn’t a citizen.

    Leslie Lynch King’s true parents were Dorothy Gardner and Gerald Ford. Those were the people who raised him. The fact that he is not related to Gerald Ford has no bearing. Dorothy Gardner left Leslie King Sr. 16 days after the child was born, and in fact, the child never knew his father. 3 years later, Dorothy Gardner had married Gerald Ford, and they started calling the child Gerald R. Ford, Jr. Gerald Ford didn’t actually legally change the name until 20 years later (imagine that! A president who went by another name other than his legal one for 20 years! He must be ineligible)!

    Your statement of “what his true parents are” is offensive to the family of every single adopted child in America. The “true parents” are the ones who come and raise them, no matter the blood relation. It doesn’t matter if they’re blood related. The biological parents, often, are nothing more than a sperm donor or egg donor who have no involvement in the parents life. However, for someone who was born in the middle of Kansas, what you’re saying is that they must know exactly who their sperm donors are, and what the citizenship status of that sperm donors in order to be eligible for the Presidency. It’s offensive to every single adopted child in America.

  221. avatar
    trader jack August 21, 2016 at 2:23 pm #

    certified documents? Do you really mean that means they reflect the true content of a document?”

    “A certified copy is a copy (often a photocopy) of a primary document, that has on it an endorsement or certificate that it is a true copy of the primary document. It does not certify that the primary document is genuine, only that it is a true copy of the primary document.”

    http://mauinotary.com/apostilles-certifications/

    Read that and see what it really means,

  222. avatar
    trader jack August 21, 2016 at 2:44 pm #

    dunstvangeet: what you’re saying is that they must know exactly who their sperm donors are, and what the citizenship status of that sperm donors in order to be eligible for the Presidency. It’s offensive to every single adopted child in America.

    I do know if a child adopted in any manner would be eligible unless the child was born in the USA.

    You do not have to know who the sperm suppliers are, but you do have to know that the child was born in the USA to an American citizen.

    Change the constitution if you want to allow more people to be eligible.

    As to being offensive to every adopted child why limit it to them, it is also offensive to people who are simply naturalized citizens, or those born out of the country who immigrated

  223. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 21, 2016 at 2:52 pm #

    trader jack: but it is a great example of how people look at things

    —-

    When I was a little girl in America, I heard stories from uncles who had visited relatives in the Soviet Union. What struck me most was that everyone there had to carry papers, and the papers identified your parents, ethnicity, religion etc.–information all to used to their detriment. Maybe to people like Orly Taitz, who grew up there, that seemed normal and the way things should be.

    I wonder what is Trader Jack’s excuse.

  224. avatar
    trader jack August 21, 2016 at 2:54 pm #

    Rickey: On the other hand, Obama’s long form birth certificate was signed by Alvin T. Onaka, Hawaii’s State Registrar, on April 25, 2011. Dr. Onaka was in fact the State Registrar on that date, and his name is spelled correctly

    Sorry, friend, but a rubber stamped signature is not a signature for all purposes. As the rubber stamp allows clerks to sign documents when authorized by official. And that makes the Onaka signature as void, for some purposes, as the misspelling of of the registrar signature on the stamp and signature on the Kenyan bc

    both are challengeable by parties interested

    they both may be true or fake
    Some times the law requires a pen and ink signature in black or blue.

  225. avatar
    trader jack August 21, 2016 at 2:59 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —-

    When I was a little girl in America, I heard stories from uncles who had visited relatives in the Soviet Union.What struck me most was that everyone there had to carry papers, and the papers identified your parents, ethnicity, religion etc.–information all to used to their detriment. Maybe to people like Orly Taitz, who grew up there, that seemed normal and the way things should be.

    I wonder what is Trader Jack’s excuse.

    Just like today, try to get around town without your id’s , credit cards drivers licenses , etc

    You can even get into a state building without showing your id’s and being scanned for weapons,

    And in most countries you need ids at all times.

    These days they are trying to get cash removed from circulation so that more tracing of money can be done by the federal government, and that would be even worse than some places in the world

  226. avatar
    Rickey August 21, 2016 at 4:26 pm #

    trader jack:

    Read this, sonny!

    Certified copy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_copy

    Wikipedia

    A certified copy is a copy (often a photocopy) of a primary document, that has on it an endorsement or certificate that it is a true copy of the primary document. It does not certify that the primary document is genuine, only that it is a true copy of the primary document.

    Yet nowhere on the Lucas Smith birth certificate does it say that it is a true copy of a primary document. Thank you for debunking your own argument that Smith’s forgery is a certified document.

  227. avatar
    gorefan August 21, 2016 at 5:09 pm #

    trader jack: Both documents are shown as certified copies of the agency that is responsible for the issuance of birth certificates for the agency and LDS copy of the Kenyan birth certificate has a pen and ink signature and HDOH used a rubber stamp that is acceptable for Hawaiian courts but not for federal courts.

    Caught you in another lie.

    Hospitals in Kenya do not issue certified copies of birth certificates. The Kenya Act No. 2 of 1928 governed who could issue certified copies of a birth certificate. Birth registrations were kept by the Registrar General. And it was the Registrar General who issued certified copies.

    Today the Registrar General is called the Principle Registrar and he is appointed by the Minister of the Ministry of State for Immigration and Registration of Persons. The Principle Registrar maintains the registration records and issues the certified copies.

    If you want a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate you would contact the Ministry of State for Immigration and Registration of Persons.

  228. avatar
    Joey August 21, 2016 at 5:16 pm #

    trader jack: HOley Gemoley, you really are set in your ways and views, aren’t you, youngster.

    Even using your definition, set forth above, you will note .that there are words in that list of words, like “kindred, related, similar” all of which can by used to describe the documents.

    And you can find no evidence that the HDOH has ever authenticated a birth certificate. let alone BHO ll’s.

    Both documents are shown as certified copies of the agency that is responsible for the issuance of birth certificates for the agency and LDS copy of the Kenyan birth certificate has a pen and ink signature and HDOH used a rubber stamp that is acceptable for Hawaiian courts but not for federal courts.

    Both should be considered to be true or false , depending upon your personal biases I don’t know whether either of them are true or false, but I do know that they appear to be certified by an agency

    And that is all that can be stated by people who have not made a decision because they have not seen the original.

    Read this, sonny!

    Certified copy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certified_copy

    Wikipedia

    A certified copy is a copy (often a photocopy) of a primary document, that has on it an endorsement or certificate that it is a true copy of the primary document. It does not certify that the primary document is genuine, only that it is a true copy of the primary document.

    The Hawaii Department of Health has authenticated Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth certificate to the satisfaction of the Federal Rules of Evidence, two states’ Chief Election Officials who asked Hawaii to verify copies of that birth record, a federal judge in Mississippi, the nine Justices of the Alabama Supreme Court who received copies of the birth certificate in an Amicus Brief and an Admnistrative Law Judge in Georgia.
    That’s been enough authentication.
    There has been no authentication by any official in Kenya of the forged Kenyan “birth certificate.”

  229. avatar
    Scientist August 21, 2016 at 5:25 pm #

    trader jack: Both documents are shown as certified copies of the agency that is responsible for the issuance of birth certificates for the agency

    Both documents are CLAIMED to be certified copies. One is backed up by the agency, one isn’t. One purports that the birth took place where the mother lived, one purports that she traveled halfway around the world to a place where she knew not a soul. Unless you can show via an independent document that Stanley Ann Dunham was in Kenya, the Kenyan b.c. is toilet paper.

  230. avatar
    Joey August 21, 2016 at 5:30 pm #

    If the forgery perpetrated by Lucas D. Smith had been a legitimate document, it would have been legalized by the current Kenyan government so that it could have been introduced as evidence in U.S. challenges to President Obama’s natural born citizenship.

  231. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 21, 2016 at 8:00 pm #

    For reference, that Act is here

    Interestingly, it appears to me upon a cursory reading of the Act that anyone, after paying the requisite fee, can examine a birth register in Kenya. One presumes that WorldNetDaily (and other birthers) have made such a request, and gotten nothing.

    gorefan: The Kenya Act No. 2 of 1928 governed who could issue certified copies of a birth certificate.

  232. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 21, 2016 at 9:32 pm #

    trader jack:

    You do not have to know who the sperm suppliers are, but you do have to know that the child was born in the USA to an American citizen.

    So, Barack Hussein Obama was born in the United States, to a U.S. Citizen. That has been established as a fact. You continue to deny it, by claiming that his father makes him ineligible for the Presidency, no matter where he was born.

    But that you for confirming that all of your statements are pure bunk.

    And there are situations where we do not even know who the parents of someone is. Imagine a baby left on the doorstep of a police station, abandoned there, with no paperwork. That is what is known as a “foundling”.

    8 USC 1401(f): a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States.

    So, you have someone who has no parents who’s found, lets’ say 2 days after birth. Are they eligible to be President? Your argument is that because we do not know if they are actually born to an American Citizen (since they literally have no parents), that they would be ineligible to be President.

    What about someone who’s born to a single mother, who has no idea who the parent is. Is that person eligible to be President? After all, how do we know that he wasn’t born to a U.S. Citizen? How do we know if his father was a U.S. Citizen.

    Like I said, your entire argument is complete bunk.

  233. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 21, 2016 at 10:24 pm #

    The law, both state and constitutional, DOES NOT CARE who or if the child has parents as far as citizenship is concerned. The only thing they are concerned with is that the child was born within the precincts of a given state. The birth certificate very plainly and clearly says that Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, which makes him by law a citizen, and a Natural Born citizen on top of it. Everything else is extraneous. The certificate does go on to name his parents, who at that point would be legally liable for his care and upbringing, but if he had been a foundling the law would still have considered him a citizen and a Natural Born one at that. So who Obama’s parents are putatively, or otherwise, is irrelevant to his citizenship. That the LFBC definitively names who his legal parents were, and shows that there has been no alteration by virtue of the alteration box NOT being checked is simply further proof. That document was sworn and attested to by the record custodian, and then at a later date a written verification was issued by the same records custodian as to the copy’s correctness. The Smith document is unattested and unverified, and has been denied by the state it was supposedly issued by, so one is a verified and certified document, the other is a piece of paper with no provenance and no certification.

  234. avatar
    Rickey August 21, 2016 at 11:18 pm #

    trader jack: Sorry, friend, but a rubber stamped signature is not a signature for all purposes. As the rubber stamp allows clerks to sign documents when authorized by official. And that makes the Onaka signature as void, for some purposes, as the misspelling of of the registrar signature on the stamp and signature on the Kenyan bc

    The Onaka signature is sufficient to have the LFBC admitted as evidence in any court in the United States. Please provide evidence for your assertion that his signature “is void for some purposes.”

    You previously said that the signature on the Smith forgery is in pen and ink. Are you suggesting that Dr. Maganga misspelled his own name?

  235. avatar
    gorefan August 22, 2016 at 12:02 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    For reference, that Act is here

    Interestingly, it appears to me upon a cursory reading of the Act that anyone, after paying the requisite fee, can examine a birth register in Kenya. One presumes that WorldNetDaily (and other birthers) have made such a request, and gotten nothing.

    This site has links to some of the previous acts.

    http://www.kenyalaw.org/lex//actviewbyid.xql?id=KE/LEG/EN/AR/B/CHAPTER%20149/sec_18

  236. avatar
    JD Reed August 22, 2016 at 3:44 pm #

    Oh, Trader Jack,
    Trading on your Berkeley education, it seems.
    Except it looks like there is a gap.
    You completely ignore the definition of comparable that fits any analysis of the HDOH birth certificate and the Lucas Daniel Smith supposed BC.
    Look up the Merriam-Webster definitions of comparable.
    This is the second definition: SIMILAR, LIKE (cited example) fabrics of comparble quality.
    By this definition, a $200 polyester suit is NOT comparable to a $15,000 guanashina suit. By the very same token, the LDS document is not comparable to the official HDOH document. The odds of the LDS document being fraudulent is greater than 99 percent, while the odds of the Hawaiian document being genuine is greater than 99 percent.
    I see that others on this thread have found that a Kenyan birth certificate register, available to the public, exists, and that no one has reported finding Barack Hussein Obama on that register.
    The logic of giving equal weight to the LDS document and the HDOH document runs aground on this: There are 250 million adult Americans, more or less, and if Lucas Daniel Smith can present a document as genuine, and demand that the government spend valuable resources before it’s considered debunked,
    an incalculable number of nut jobs might be expected to assert that
    same right.
    But of course, fortunately, that’s not the way the things are set up to work in the real world, Berkeley education or not.

  237. avatar
    trader jack August 22, 2016 at 3:53 pm #

    OK, you want to play games with the old man.,

    And you think that the LFBC is valid and prima facie evidence of the fact?

    Do you know that the State of Hawaii won’t accept it for some reasons?

    No, that couldn’t be , could it?

    Looky here:”
    The certified copy must display the ORIGINAL SIGNATURE (not a stamped signature) of the custodian of the record. CONTACT the Department of Health or the respective Court or the Bureau of Conveyances for any information on any fees charged for certified copies. Certified court records must contain the signature stamp of the court clerk along with the seal of the court.”

    Now where did this little bit of evidence come from.

    http://mauinotary.com/apostilles-certifications/

    Even that will not change your minds, will it. LOL

  238. avatar
    trader jack August 22, 2016 at 4:20 pm #

    JD Reed:
    Oh, Trader Jack,
    Trading on your Berkeley education, it seems.
    Except it looks like there is a gap.
    You completely ignore the definition of comparable that fits any analysis of the HDOH birth certificate and the Lucas Daniel Smith supposed BC.
    Look up the Merriam-Webster definitions of comparable.
    This is the second definition: SIMILAR, LIKE (cited example) fabrics of comparble quality.
    By this definition, a $200 polyester suit is NOT comparable to a $15,000 guanashina suit. By the very same token, the LDS document is not comparable to the official HDOH document. The odds of the LDS document being fraudulent is greater than 99 percent, while the odds of the Hawaiian document being genuine is greater than 99 percent.
    I see that others on this thread have found that a Kenyan birth certificate register, available to the public, exists, and that no one has reported finding Barack Hussein Obama on that register.
    The logic of giving equal weight to the LDS document and the HDOH document runs aground on this: There are 250 million adultAmericans, more or less, and if Lucas Daniel Smith can present a document as genuine, and demand that the government spend valuable resources before it’s considered debunked,
    an incalculable number of nut jobs might be expected to assert that
    same right.
    But of course, fortunately, that’s not the way the things are set up to work in the real world, Berkeley education or not.

    JDReed, except you ignore the basics of the comments

    How do you know that the two documents are not comparable?

    The first thing you have to do is compare the documents, right?

    And then you can use the second definition for the determination that they are not comparable.

    I am comparing a kindle to a book, and find that they are not comparable, in some respects.

    But if you read the text of the book, you will find that by comparing the text of the book, the are comparable

    Both document are different in display, but the contents are comparable, and you can make a decision as to the worth of either one of them.

  239. avatar
    Joey August 22, 2016 at 8:43 pm #

    trader jack: Sorry, friend, but a rubber stamped signature is not a signature for all purposes. As the rubber stamp allows clerks to sign documents when authorized by official. And that makes the Onaka signature as void, for some purposes, as the misspelling of of the registrar signature on the stamp and signature on the Kenyan bc

    both are challengeable by parties interested

    they both may be true or fake
    Some times the law requires a pen and ink signature in black or blue.

    Is Trader Jack aware of the action of any judge, any action of Congress or any state Election Official ever rejecting the certfication stamp of Dr. Onaka for any purpose related to the acceptance of the Barack Obama birth certificate as proof of his natural born citizenship?
    The Hawaii state Regstrar hand-signed and initialed the Certified Letter of Verfication that has accompanied the copies of the long form birth certificate for official purposes.
    http://archive.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf

  240. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 22, 2016 at 9:04 pm #

    Why is it so hard for some people to believe that Obama was born in the US? Lots of people are born here.

  241. avatar
    Rickey August 22, 2016 at 11:11 pm #

    J.D. Sue:
    Why is it so hard for some people to believe that Obama was born in the US?Lots of people are born here.

    Because Obama’s an uppity black man who doesn’t know his place.

  242. avatar
    Joey August 23, 2016 at 12:02 am #

    Rickey: Because Obama’s an uppity black man who doesn’t know his place.

    Additionally, some folks just don’t have the character to admit that they were wrong.

  243. avatar
    trader jack August 23, 2016 at 3:49 am #

    No, Obama is an American of mixed race , white, black, and arab. And more white than black.
    So, I guess you would call him an uppity white man, but I don’t. Actually , physically he look like his father was from Jamaica, not from Kenya.

  244. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) August 23, 2016 at 6:15 am #

    trader jack: Obama is an American of mixed race , white, black, and arab. And more white than black

    Your obsession with race and the racial make-up of individual persons would’ve fit right in Germany 1933.

    trader jack: physically he look like his father was from Jamaica, not from Kenya

    I probably look more Danish than German, too? Didn’t know you could pinpoint citizenship by looks these days.

  245. avatar
    Scientist August 23, 2016 at 6:39 am #

    trader jack: Actually , physically he look like his father was from Jamaica, not from Kenya.

    Black Jamaicans are from the same regions of West Africa as Black Americans. The British slavers didn’t distinguish between who they put on a ship for Jamaica and who they put on a ship for Virginia. So why would you say Jamaican, rather than African-American?

    Is Obama related to Usain Bolt? Before Bolt’s 200m race, NBC showed some wonderful video of the two of them clowning around. They both have charisma, that;s for sure.

  246. avatar
    Northland10 August 23, 2016 at 9:41 am #

    trader jack:
    No, Obama is an American of mixed race , white, black, and arab.

    Arab? Just because his father’s family, or parts of it, were Muslim it does not mean they’re Arab. Not all Muslims are Arab.

  247. avatar
    gorefan August 23, 2016 at 10:36 am #

    trader jack: Do you know that the State of Hawaii won’t accept it for some reasons?

    Hahaha

    Do you not understand the concept or the need of an apostille?

  248. avatar
    Rickey August 23, 2016 at 10:55 am #

    trader jack:
    No, Obama is an American of mixed race , white, black, and arab. And more white than black.

    More nonsense from Trader Jack. There is no evidence that Obama’s father had any Arab blood. Obama’s paternal grandparents were members of the Luo tribe and were not Arabs. In fact, Arabs, Asians and Europeans combined make up less than 1% of Kenya’s population.

  249. avatar
    JD Reed August 23, 2016 at 11:01 am #

    trader jack:
    No, Obama is an American of mixed race , white, black, and arab. And more white than black.
    So, I guess you would call him an uppity white man,but I don’t.Actually , physically he look like hisfather was from Jamaica,not from Kenya.

    trader jack: JDReed,except you ignore the basics of the comments

    How do you know that the two documents are not comparable?

    The first thing you have to do is compare the documents, right?

    And then you can use the second definition for the determination that they are not comparable.

    I am comparing a kindle to a book, and find that they are not comparable, in some respects.

    But if you read the text of the book, you will find that by comparing the text of the book, the are comparable

    Both document are different in display, but the contents are comparable, and you can make a decision as to the worth of either one of them.

    Trader, the HDOH document and the Lucas Smith document are not even apples and oranges, more like apples and kumquats, if that.
    For starters, Smith is a convicted forger, and no one at the HDOH is. That must count for something. Secondly, Smith has never proved he ever visited Kenya. Thirdly, the DHOH has verified the information repeatedly on the BC that you birthers insist is a forgery. If A forgery, I see two possibilities: one, the DHOH was in on it from the beginning, and through channels fed the two Honolulu dailies the fraudulent data; or, two, the data that the DHOH maintained is true, but for some inexplicable reason the White House chose to forge a document using true information, rather than copying the genuine document.
    Also, I’ve read on this very site that Kenya has index information on births in that country. If so, it beggars belief that some birther has not gone to Kenya to look up the name Barack Hussein Obama II. And if they had found it, it is impossible that they would not have trumpeted this to the whole world.

  250. avatar
    Whatever4 August 23, 2016 at 11:17 am #

    trader jack: adjectivesapply to subjects, verbs apply to actions.

    I am comparing the two documents, and the actionmakes them comparable.

    They areboth certified copies of birth records, and are there fore comparable, and they can be compared to each other.A modelT can be compared to a GT 40, or a horse and buggy, and they are comparable by being modes of transportation

    “comparable
    (Capable of comparison), adjective akin, alike, analagous, analogical, approximate, associated, close, cognate, commensurable, comparabilis, congeneric, correlative, homogeneous, homologous, kindred, like, much the same, parallel, related, resembling, similar

    comparable
    (Equivalent), adjective coequal, commensurate, equable, equal in value, equipollent, even, identical, interchangeable, matched, matching, on par, tantamount, undeviating, uniform, unvarying, without distinction
    See also: analogous, apposite, approximate, coequal, coextensive, cognate, commensurable, commensurate, comparative, correlative, equivalent, identical, proportionate, similar, tantamount
    Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

    Better check better sources for your information

    Never dispute a Cal Berkeley graduate,without having the same education.LOL

    Those aren’t definitions, they are synonyms from a thesaurus. Synonyms are words with similar meanings, but may nor be interchangeable depending on context. For example, comparable isn’t necessarily identical.

  251. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 23, 2016 at 3:02 pm #

    The HDH certificate has been certified and repeatedly been verified by the HDH, whereas the Smith document has been denied by Kenya, and there is no evidence that it is or ever was properly certified, so they are not even remotely similar in value.

  252. avatar
    Joey August 23, 2016 at 3:13 pm #

    trader jack:
    No, Obama is an American of mixed race , white, black, and arab. And more white than black.
    So, I guess you would call him an uppity white man,but I don’t.Actually , physically he look like hisfather was from Jamaica,not from Kenya.

    Trader Jack does not understand that Jamaicans of African ancestry were brought to the Caribbean Islands as slaves.
    Barack Obama’s ancestry is half Luo peoples of Kenya and half European-Caucasian. The European ancestries are Scottsh, Irish, Welsh, Englush and German.
    Here’s a link to the Obama family tree: http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ancestors_of_Barack_Obama

    Barack Obama is related to Jonathan Singletary Dunham, a prominent early American settler who left the Plymouth Colony to build the first gristmill in New Jersey and he is also related to John Punch who was the first person of sub-Saharan African ancestry to be enslaved for life at Jamestown Colony.

    No one has uncovered any Arabian ancestors of Barack Hussein Obama, II.

  253. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG. August 23, 2016 at 5:21 pm #

    trader jack: Never dispute a Cal Berkeley graduate,without having the same education. LOL

    I dispute everything you say, including your so-called education. Honestly, some of the stupidest people I’ve met graduated from college. Certainly the stupidest ones, that were also the most full of themselves.

  254. avatar
    bob August 23, 2016 at 5:25 pm #

    trader jack: http://mauinotary.com/apostilles-certifications/

    Wrong yet again: An apostille is needed only to certify a document for a foreign country. Under the laws of the United States, Hawaii’s birth certificate is valid and accepted by any government agency; and it actually has been accepted by U.S. courts.

    None of which can be said for Smith’s document, which is why the two aren’t comparable. And why your contrary statements are lies.

    The first thing you have to do is compare the documents, right?

    No: the first thing you do is ascertain their provenance; duh.

    trader jack: No, Obama is an American of mixed race , white, black, and arab. And more white than black.

    Surely you have evidence to support this supposition; because you would never spread lies (excuse me: “just ask questions”) about President Obama.

  255. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG. August 23, 2016 at 5:29 pm #

    bob: Wrong yet again: An apostille is needed only to certify a document for a foreign country.Under the laws of the United States, Hawaii’s birth certificate is valid and accepted by any government agency; and it actually has been accepted by U.S. courts.

    None of which can be said for Smith’s document, which is why the two aren’t comparable.And why your contrary statements are lies.

    Surely you have evidence to support this supposition; because you would never spread lies (excuse me: “just ask questions”) about President Obama.

    Know what I’ve always hated about the whole “just asking questions” thing. You know DAMNED well those “just asking questions” would turn eight shades of angry if you “just ask questions” about them.

  256. avatar
    Rickey August 23, 2016 at 5:59 pm #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG.: Know what I’ve always hated about the whole “just asking questions” thing. You know DAMNED well those “just asking questions” would turn eight shades of angry if you “just ask questions” about them.

    It’s as bad as “some people are saying,” which allows people to spread unfounded rumor without taking responsibility for spreading them.

  257. avatar
    Northland10 August 23, 2016 at 8:46 pm #

    Whatever4: Those aren’t definitions, they are synonyms from a thesaurus. Synonyms are words with similar meanings, but may nor be interchangeable depending on context. For example, comparable isn’t necessarily identical.

    And Cal Berkeley wept.

  258. avatar
    Reality Check August 23, 2016 at 8:50 pm #

    Birthers like to claim “we are only asking questions” but they have never asked those questions about any of the 42 previous presidents and even more vice presidents. They never gave a crap about who their parents were or where they were born. Any rational person asking why can come to only one obvious conclusion as to what made Obama different to them.

    They are also so stupid they cannot realize how detestable it is to ask a person of black ancestry to “show their papers:. I wonder how many of these racists ever gave it a second thought that only a couple of generations ago blacks in the south were hung or even burned alive merely for being black? I saw today where a handful of white racist assholes in Houston paraded around the NAACP headquarters in Houston with their confederate flags and “white lives matter” signs. I wonder if Rambo Ike was there?

    Rickey: Because Obama’s an uppity black man who doesn’t know his place.

  259. avatar
    Scientist August 23, 2016 at 9:02 pm #

    Whatever4: Those aren’t definitions, they are synonyms from a thesaurus. Synonyms are words with similar meanings, but may nor be interchangeable depending on context. For example, comparable isn’t necessarily identical.

    jack reminds me of this

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

  260. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 23, 2016 at 9:29 pm #

    AH, the South Carolina Voter ID law. I’m afraid I’ll be doing that come November.

    Reality Check: They are also so stupid they cannot realize how detestable it is to ask a person of black ancestry to “show their papers:.

  261. avatar
    trader jack August 24, 2016 at 3:37 am #

    Not too much sense responding to your comments as it is evident that someone is removing my posting, Now I wonder who that could be who does like posting of information that does not meet the beliefs of the site.

    LOL

    I suppose it is difficult to read the truth, isn’t it?

  262. avatar
    trader jack August 24, 2016 at 3:43 am #

    bob: Wrong yet again: An apostille is needed only to certify a document for a foreign country.Under the laws of the United States, Hawaii’s birth certificate is valid and accepted by any government agency; and it actually has been accepted by U.S. courts.

    None of which can be said for Smith’s document, which is why the two aren’t comparable.And why your contrary statements are lies.

    No: the first thing you do is ascertain their provenance; duh.

    Surely you have evidence to support this supposition; because you would never spread lies (excuse me: “just ask questions”) about President Obama.

    You can ascertain provenance without looking at the document to determine what it is to find out if you need to ascertain the provenance of the document

  263. avatar
    trader jack August 24, 2016 at 4:18 am #

    “The certification affixed to Exhibit 6
    states: “I do hereby certify that this is a full, true, and
    correct copy of the document on file in this office.” The
    signature line of the certification states: “Judiciary, Admin.
    Driver’s License Rev., State of Hawaii.” Based on other
    information in the exhibit, it appears the certification was
    signed by a Review Officer within the ADLRO. The certification,
    however, fails to establish that the certification was made by
    “the custodian” of the documents or by another person “authorized
    to make the certification.” There is no evidence, and no
    argument by the State, that a Review Officer is authorized to
    make the certification required under HRE Rule 902(4). See also
    HRS Chapter 291E, Part III (Administrative Revocation Process).
    Without more, we conclude the certification requirements under
    HRE Rule 902(4) were not met.
    Moreover, although the State asserts that Exhibit 6 is
    “sealed,” which is apparently a reference to the documents being”

    “(4) Certified copies of public records. – A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this rule or complying with any statute or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.”

  264. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2016 at 7:46 am #

    Trolls just don’t get no respect.

    trader jack: I suppose it is difficult to read the truth, isn’t it?

  265. avatar
    Lupin August 24, 2016 at 8:06 am #

    trader jack: Now I wonder who that could be who does like posting of information that does not meet the beliefs of the site.

    I’m not sure what you mean by the “beliefs” of the site but you sure have posted a lot of rubbish on this thread.

    Speaking purely as a Frenchman (and not one who is particularly supportive of Mr Obama’s foreign policy), it’s been established that when he was a student, in the early 80s, young Obama visited France as a tourist. In order to enter our country without a visa, he had to show a valid US passport.

    Though I’m sure there are fraudulent US passports, including some likely manufactured by US intelligence, life is not a TV show and Student Obama wasn’t a secret spook in disguise. For all intents and purposes, he was (and still is) a US citizen.

  266. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 24, 2016 at 10:24 am #

    trader jack: I suppose it is difficult to read the truth, isn’t it?

    Hmm which is why you ignore the articles on this site only to post your off topic comments. No surprise. Why are you complaining? You’ve been banned several times from this site yet Doc still allows you to come back and post here.

  267. avatar
    Scientist August 24, 2016 at 10:51 am #

    trader jack: I suppose it is difficult to read the truth, isn’t it?

    It’s easy to read the truth. Now could you try giving us some????

  268. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 24, 2016 at 10:56 am #

    trader jack: And more white than black. So, I guess you would call him an uppity white man

    So, when did the racists change the rules? I thought 1/16 black equaled black in their book.

  269. avatar
    Arthur B. August 24, 2016 at 11:30 am #

    trader jack: Without more, we conclude the certification requirements under HRE Rule 902(4) were not met…

    “(4) Certified copies of public records. –…”

    I assume you are speaking about the president’s Hawaiian BCs, in which case you are wrong yet again.

    The documents in question are covered not by section (4), “Certified copies of public records,” but rather by section (1), “Domestic public documents under seal,” and the requirements in that section are met.

    On the other hand, the Smith document does indeed fail to meet the requirements, in this case the ones in section (3), “Foreign public documents.”

  270. avatar
    J.D. Sue August 24, 2016 at 11:38 am #

    Arthur B.: The documents in question are covered not by section (4), “Certified copies of public records,” but rather by section (1), “Domestic public documents under seal,”

    —-

    They are so used to lying about Obama’s records being “sealed”.

  271. avatar
    Arthur B. August 24, 2016 at 11:43 am #

    J.D. Sue: —-

    They are so used to lying about Obama’s records being “sealed”.

    Right — his very first Executive Order! Can’t slip anything by them.

  272. avatar
    Joey August 24, 2016 at 12:22 pm #

    J.D. Sue: —

    So, when did the racists change the rules?I thought 1/16 black equaled black in their book.

    Trader Jack is such a white racst punk that he actually believes that someone with one sub-Saharan African parent and one European-origin Caucasian parent is “more white than black.” Now that’s what I call a “white supremacist” belief system.
    Thank God the very last of the old, hard core white racists will be dead soon. Trader Jack and most birthers just can’t bring themselves to accept a non-white person as president of this nation, even after seven years and eight months.
    Fortunately the president was able to exploit their hatred to help get himself elected. The vast majority of Americans are repulsed by that brand of ugliness and refuse to associate themselves with it.

  273. avatar
    bob August 24, 2016 at 3:40 pm #

    trader jack: You can ascertain provenance without looking at the document to determine what it is to find out if you need to ascertain the provenance of the document

    So what’s the provenance of a document being touted by a convicted forger who can’t prove that he’s ever been to Kenya? (No cheating and referring back to Smith’s document, because you just said that need not be done.)

    * * *

    trader jack:
    The certification, however, fails to establish that the certification was made by “the custodian” of the documents or by another person “authorized to make the certification.”

    I’m sure the revocation of Brian Sheldon’s driver’s license has some meaning to you, but it has nothing do with President Obama’s birth certificate, which was certified by the custodian of Hawaii’s records.

  274. avatar
    trader jack August 24, 2016 at 4:36 pm #

    1) Domestic public documents under seal. A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.”

    then comes:

    “(4) Certified copies of public records. A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian or other person authorized to make the certification, by certificate complying with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) or complying with any statute or rule prescribed by the supreme court.”

    You will note the three lines of this states that you need a certificate that complies with paragraph 1, 2, or three , to authenticate a certified copy of a public record.

    Perhaps you didn’t see that little thing there in the (4)

  275. avatar
    trader jack August 24, 2016 at 4:37 pm #

    Joey: Trader Jack is such a white racst punk that he actually believes that someone with one sub-Saharan African parent and one European-origin Caucasian parent is “more white than black.” Now that’s what I call a “white supremacist” belief system.
    Thank God the very last of the old, hard core white racists will be dead soon. Trader Jack and most birthers just can’t bring themselves to accept a non-white person as president of this nation, even after seven years and eight months.
    Fortunately the president was able to exploit their hatred to help get himself elected. The vast majority of Americans are repulsed by that brand of ugliness and refuse to associate themselves with it.

    Perhaps you didn’t realize that Africa has a bunch of white people who have children with other people and they might be Africans that are full blooded of what ever race there might be.

  276. avatar
    Scientist August 24, 2016 at 4:59 pm #

    trader jack: Perhaps you didn’t realize thatAfrica has a bunch of white people who have children with other peopleand they might be Africans that are full blooded of what ever race there might be.

    There are whites in South Africa, but that’s a long way from Kenya. There were and are a small number of whites in Kenya, but there is no reason to believe any of them were ancestors of the President.

    But let me assure you that we are ALL Africans, because modern humans are ALL descended from a very small group of early Homo sapiens who lived in the area of modern day Ethiopia and Kenya around 150,000 years ago and spread out from there to populate the entire planet.

    Moreover, as a PhD geneticist let me say that the entire idea of “races” is highly debatable. At the DNA level there can be more genetic distance between two individuals of the same “race” than between two individuals of different “races”.

  277. avatar
    Arthur B. August 24, 2016 at 5:04 pm #

    trader jack: 1) Domestic public documents under seal….
    then comes:

    “(4) Certified copies of public records….

    Perhaps you didn’t see that little thing there in the (4)

    Are you really that dumb or are you just pretending?

    HRE Rule 902 contains eleven numbered paragraphs describing eleven categories of documents for which “[e]xtrinsic evidence of authenticity” is not required.

    The Obama birth certificates satisfy the requirements described in (1), “Domestic public documents under seal.” Therefore, they qualify as self-authenticating documents under Hawaiian law.

    Needless to say, they do not also have to qualify as “(3) Foreign public documents,” “(6) Newspapers and periodicals,” or any of the other categories of documents.

    “That little thing there in the (4)” is irrelevant to this discussion.

  278. avatar
    trader jack August 24, 2016 at 5:20 pm #

    bob: So what’s the provenance of a document being touted by a convicted forger who can’t prove that he’s ever been to Kenya? (No cheating and referring back to Smith’s document, because you just said that need not be done.)

    More accurately stated,, which I know will upset you, is the Smith refuses to document his visiting Kenya, as there is no requirement that he prove anything about his location to anyone’s satisfaction.

    How can you make a positive statement about a fact that you can not prove either way?

  279. avatar
    bob August 24, 2016 at 5:22 pm #

    Arthur B.: Are you really that dumb or are you just pretending?

    He really is that dumb. And note how he ran away from his lie that President Obama is part-Arab.

    The Obama birth certificates satisfy the requirements described in (1), “Domestic public documents under seal.” Therefore, they qualify as self-authenticating documents under Hawaiian law.

    Exactly. Brian Sheldon won his case because those particular records (1) did not bear a governmental seal; and (2) their correctness was not attested to by the custodian of those records. “Concerns” not applicable to President Obama’s birth certificate.

  280. avatar
    trader jack August 24, 2016 at 5:37 pm #

    Arthur B.: Are you really that dumb or are you just pretending?

    HRE Rule 902 contains eleven numbered paragraphs describing eleven categories of documents for which “[e]xtrinsic evidence of authenticity” is not required.

    The Obama birth certificates satisfy the requirements described in (1), “Domestic public documents under seal.” Therefore, they qualify as self-authenticating documents under Hawaiian law.

    Needless to say, they do not also have to qualify as “(3) Foreign public documents,” “(6) Newspapers and periodicals,” or any of the other categories of documents.

    “That little thing there in the (4)” is irrelevant to this discussion.

    You actually don’t believe what the law says on “certified copies of public records”?

    The court case I posted showed that the document was certified as being true and accurate , but the court said that the signer of the certification was not shown as being authorized to sign the certification, and there was no document from the agency showing that he was the custodian and had approval to issue the certification.

    The court held that the document had to have the proof of custody and the authority to sign the certification as a separate document to authentic the document.

    You did note that you have to have a certificate to go with the certified copies of public documents, didn’t you?

  281. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2016 at 5:45 pm #

    You mean like Helton (sic) Maganga who was not really the hospital administrator, whose name appears on the Lucas Smith certificate? Yes that is a killer problem for the Smith certificate, one that cannot be remedied.

    Dr. Onaka’s authority to sign Hawaiian certificates is a matter of public record. No court would ask for a separate certification that he could sign.

    trader jack: The court case I posted showed that the document was certified as being true and accurate , but the court said that the signer of the certification was not shown as being authorized to sign the certification,

  282. avatar
    Arthur B. August 24, 2016 at 5:45 pm #

    trader jack: You did note that you have to have a certificate to go with the certified copies of public documents, didn’t you?

    The certificates satisfy all the conditions specified in (1), “Domestic public documents under seal.” Therefore, they qualify as self-authenticating documents under Hawaiian law.

    Period. No other conditions need be met.

  283. avatar
    trader jack August 24, 2016 at 5:54 pm #

    bob: Surely you have evidence to support this supposition; because you would never spread lies (excuse me: “just ask questions”) about President Obama.

    “”Comment: Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. He is the first
    Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein
    Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother’s side and 43.75% ARABIC and 6.25 % American Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father’s birth certificate even states he’s
    Arab, not African Negro). ”

    http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=80164

    Just like I said, even more so!

  284. avatar
    Arthur B. August 24, 2016 at 5:55 pm #

    trader jack: You actually don’t believe what the law says on “certified copies of public records”?

    This shows an important misunderstanding on your part.

    The Obama birth certificates are not “certified copies of public records”; they are original state documents, having been issued by the Department of Health and bearing official state signatures and seals.

    “Certified copies” are something else entirely. Typically they are documents that begin life as uncertified copies — say, for example, you xeroxed your own birth certificate, and you take it to the Department of Health and ask them to certify that it is a true copy of the original. Their certifications are the accompanying documents that attest to the authenticity of the certified copy.

    But the Obama BCs are not copies — they are “Domestic public documents under seal,” and they satisfy section (1). Section (4) is of no relevance.

  285. avatar
    bob August 24, 2016 at 5:57 pm #

    trader jack:
    The court case I posted showed that the document was certified as being true and accurate , but the court said that the signer of the certification was not shown as being authorized to sign the certification, and there was no document from the agency showing that he was the custodian and had approval to issue the certification.

    1. Sheldon’s case (which I found you cribbing from) specifically discussed that Sheldon’s records lacked a seal. Not a “concern” regarding President Obama’s birth certificate, as it contains a seal. The seal is the full stop, but:
    2. Sheldon’s case also specifically discussed there was no evidence that the person who certified those records was their custodian. Also not a “concern” regarding President Obama’s birth certificate, as Dr. Onaka is Hawaii’s Registrar of Vital Statistics.

  286. avatar
    trader jack August 24, 2016 at 6:05 pm #

    Arthur B.: The certificates satisfy all the conditions specified in (1), “Domestic public documents under seal.” Therefore, they qualify as self-authenticating documents under Hawaiian law.

    Period. No other conditions need be met.

    You did note that the court said the certified copies of the public documents were “under seal” didn’t you, and the court said it was no sufficient because no documentation showed the signer of the certification had the right to sign the document and there was no other certificates establishing that.

  287. avatar
    Scientist August 24, 2016 at 6:20 pm #

    trader jack: The court held that the document had to have the proof of custody and the authority to sign the certification as a separate document to authentic the document.

    Obama’s Hawaiian certificate has those.

    The Kenyan POS lacks them-if you were to believe Smith’s crapola story, it was illegally obtained, in possible violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. There is no statement from anyone in the Government of Kenya that it is legitimate, in fact they say it is not.

    You have just destroyed your own case. Now get lost.

    PS- You are no more 93 than I am Elvis.

  288. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 24, 2016 at 6:21 pm #

    A comment on Snopes means no more than a comment here.

    trader jack: Comment:

  289. avatar
    gorefan August 24, 2016 at 6:24 pm #

    trader jack: The court held that the document had to have the proof of custody and the authority to sign the certification as a separate document to authentic the document.

    Hawaii law gives that authority to the state registrar.

    Hawaii. Administrative Rules §§ 11-117

    Public Health Regulations

    Vital Statistics Registration and Records

    Chapter 8B

    2.4 B Standards for Copies of Vital Records

    (b) Form of certification. Standard certified copies shall contain an appropriate certification statement over the signature of the registrar having custody of the record and be impressed with the raised seal of the issuing office. The signature may be photographed or entered by mechanical means. The paper shall display the seal of the Department of Health or the seal of the State.

  290. avatar
    bob August 24, 2016 at 6:34 pm #

    trader jack: “”Comment: Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. He is the first Arab-American President

    Passing off a random, unsubstantiated comment as evidence is proof only that you peddle lies.

    trader jack: You did note that the court said the certified copies of the public documents were “under seal” didn’t you

    Yet another lie, the Shelton court said exactly the opposite: “Exhibit 6 does not have any seal as required under [HRE R. 902(1)].”

  291. avatar
    gorefan August 24, 2016 at 6:52 pm #

    trader jack: The court held that the document had to have the proof of custody and the authority to sign the certification as a separate document to authentic the document.

    2013 Hawaii Revised Statutes
    TITLE 33. EVIDENCE
    626. Hawaii rules of evidence
    902 Self-authentication

    (10) Presumptions under statutes. Any signature, document, or other matter declared by statute to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.

    This applies to certified copies of birth certificates under Hawaiian law.

    §338-12 Evidentiary character of certificates. Certificates filed within thirty days after the time prescribed therefor shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Data pertaining to the father of a child is prima facie evidence if:

    (1) The alleged father is:

    (A) The husband of the mother; or
    (B) The acknowledged father of the child; or

    (2) The father and child relationship has been established under chapter 584. Data pertaining to the alleged father acknowledging paternity of the child is admissible as evidence of paternity in any family court proceeding, including proceedings under chapter 584.

    [L 1949, c 327, §16; RL 1955, §57-15; HRS §338-12; am L 1975, c 66, §2(2); am L 1994, c 23, §1]

  292. avatar
    JD Reed August 24, 2016 at 8:27 pm #

    trader jack: “”Comment: Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. He is the first
    Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein
    Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother’s side and 43.75% ARABIC and 6.25 % American Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father’s birth certificate even states he’s
    Arab, not African Negro). ”

    http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=80164

    Just like I said, even more so!

    trader jack: “”Comment: Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. He is the first
    Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein
    Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother’s side and 43.75% ARABIC and 6.25 % American Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father’s birth certificate even states he’s
    Arab, not African Negro). ”

    http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=80164

    Trader Jack, again trading on Internet misinformation. Have you ever seen a picture of Baraack Obama I?
    Click on the link above and you’ll find several pictures of the president’s father. Tell me that his skin tone and facial features are those of an Arab.
    This makes obvious that the comment on the Snopes website was one of the multi-score false rumors about Obama that have been passed by social media the last eight years.

  293. avatar
    JD Reed August 24, 2016 at 8:49 pm #

    My post above went haywire. When I clicked “sent” it showed a link to a newspaper photo gallery of the president and his father. But when I read my post after it was sent it didn’t include the photos. But anyone interested can navigate to the site with keywords, such as — pictures president’s father — and you will see a very dark complexioned chap. I will try again to successfully insert the link.

  294. avatar
    JD Reed August 24, 2016 at 8:53 pm #

    JD Reed:
    My post above went haywire. When I clicked “sent” it showed a link to a newspaper photo gallery of the president and his father. But when I read my post after it was sent it didn’t include the photos. But anyone interested can navigate to the site with keywords, such as — pictures president’s father — and you will see a very dark complexioned chap. I will try again to successfully insert the link.
    With luck here it is.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/9657962/Barack-Obamas-life-and-career-in-50-pictures.html?image=2

  295. avatar
    Joey August 24, 2016 at 8:58 pm #

    Trader Jack actually believes that an anonymous comment on an Internet blog is proof of something!
    There are professional genealogists who have traced Barack Obama’s family history back for many generations. There are no Arabs in the Obama family lineage.
    Here’s a lnk to ten generations worth:
    http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ancestors_of_Barack_Obama

  296. avatar
    Reality Check August 24, 2016 at 9:07 pm #

    Trader jack seems a little too concerned about lineage instead of the character of a person. There is a name for people like that. I will see if I can recall what that term is. I think it begins with an “r”.

  297. avatar
    Arthur B. August 24, 2016 at 9:13 pm #

    trader jack: You did note that the court said the certified copies of the public documents were “under seal” didn’t you, and the court said it was no sufficient because no documentation showed the signer of the certification had the right to sign the document and there was no other certificates establishing that.

    You are confusing two distinct legal concepts.

    You begin by quoting HRE Rule 902, which deals with the admissibility of evidence. Note that the requirements of section (1) include “a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any state…” (emphasis added)

    Got that? It doesn’t matter at that point who the signer of the certification was or even whether the seal is real or fake. The document is self-authenticating, and is admissible as prima facie evidence.

    But prima facie evidence can be rebutted, so if you’ve got an argument against the document, take that argument to court. I understand you to say that in the case you are referring to, the court agreed that the document was defective.

    However, in the case of the Obama BCs, no court has so ruled, and so the presumption of validity still attaches to them.

  298. avatar
    Scientist August 24, 2016 at 10:25 pm #

    Joey: Here’s a lnk to ten generations worth:
    http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ancestors_of_Barack_Obama

    That genealogy contains information far more damning than African ancestry. The President is FRENCH!!!!!

  299. avatar
    Joey August 25, 2016 at 12:13 am #

    Scientist: That genealogy contains information far more damning than African ancestry.The President is FRENCH!!!!!

    Don’t tell Lupin!

  300. avatar
    trader jack August 25, 2016 at 4:33 am #

    Arthur B.: You are confusing two distinct legal concepts.

    You begin by quoting HRE Rule 902, which deals with the admissibility of evidence. Note that the requirements of section (1) include “a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any state…” (emphasis added)

    Got that? It doesn’t matter at that point who the signer of the certification was or even whether the seal is real or fake. The document is self-authenticating, and is admissible as prima facie evidence.

    But prima facie evidence can be rebutted, so if you’ve got an argument against the document, take that argument to court. I understand you to say that in the case you are referring to, the court agreed that the document was defective.

    However, in the case of the Obama BCs, no court has so ruled, and so the presumption of validity still attaches to them.

    “Case law and statutes have, over the years, developed a substantial body of instances in which authenticity is taken as sufficiently established for purposes of admissibility without extrinsic evidence to that effect, sometimes for reasons of policy but perhaps more often because practical considerations reduce the possibility of unauthenticity to a very small dimension. The present rule collects and incorporates these situations, in some instances expanding them to occupy a larger area which their underlying considerations justify. In no instance is the opposite party foreclosed from disputing authenticity”

    Rule 44. Proving an Official Record

    (a) Means of Proving.

    (1) Domestic Record. Each of the following evidences an official record—or an entry in it—that is otherwise admissible and is kept within the United States, any state, district, or commonwealth, or any territory subject to the administrative or judicial jurisdiction of the United States:

    (A) an official publication of the record; or

    (B) a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the record—or by the officer’s deputy—and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has custody. The certificate must be made under seal:

    (i) by a judge of a court of record in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept; or

    (ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_44

    there you go, folks, how to prove an official record

  301. avatar
    trader jack August 25, 2016 at 4:37 am #

    Scientist: That genealogy contains information far more damning than African ancestry.The President is FRENCH!!!!!

    on the white side there is lots of information, on the African very little except one name, which might be a father of a tribe.

    still makes him a white African American.

  302. avatar
    Sef August 25, 2016 at 11:12 am #

    Joey:
    Trader Jack actually believes that an anonymous comment on an Internet blog is proof of something!
    There are professional genealogists who have traced Barack Obama’s family history back for many generations. There are no Arabs in the Obama family lineage.
    Here’s a lnk to ten generations worth:
    http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ancestors_of_Barack_Obama

    An ahnentafel that includes Charlemagne is immediately suspect. Probably the stuff back to the immigrant ancestors is OK, but much beyond that needs to be taken with a grain of NaCl. Anyway, what would it mean to have 1/2^39 of your DNA from a particular individual?

  303. avatar
    Arthur B. August 25, 2016 at 5:40 pm #

    trader jack: there you go, folks, how to prove an official record

    Right. And the Obama BCs qualify under “(1)(A) an official publication of the record.”

    That’s not too difficult for you to understand, is it?

  304. avatar
    Rickey August 25, 2016 at 5:50 pm #

    Joey:
    Trader Jack actually believes that an anonymous comment on an Internet blog is proof of something!

    And he also believes that the anonymous comment is from someone who has seen the birth certificate of Obama’s father. Yet apparently no other person on the face of the earth has seen that birth certificate, if it even exists.

    Which goes to show that Trader Jack requires no evidence in order to believe things which support his biases, but he requires extraordinary evidence when it comes to things which discredit his biases.

  305. avatar
    JD Reed August 25, 2016 at 7:03 pm #

    trader jack: on the white side there is lots of information, on the African very little except one name, which might be a father of a tribe.

    still makes him a white African American.

    –sigh–
    Jack, did you take a peek at the picture of Obama in the link I provided above? Notice how very black he was! So what do you mean by “white African American.” To judge by you, Berkeley did not include logic in its curriculum in the ’40s.

  306. avatar
    Joey August 25, 2016 at 7:16 pm #

    trader jack: “Case law and statutes have, over the years, developed a substantial body of instances in which authenticity is taken as sufficiently established for purposes of admissibility without extrinsic evidence to that effect, sometimes for reasons of policy but perhaps more often because practical considerations reduce the possibility of unauthenticity to a very small dimension. The present rule collects and incorporates these situations, in some instances expanding them to occupy a larger area which their underlying considerations justify. In no instance is the opposite party foreclosed from disputing authenticity”

    Rule 44. Proving an Official Record

    (a) Means of Proving.

    (1) Domestic Record. Each of the following evidences an official record—or an entry in it—that is otherwise admissible and is kept within the United States, any state, district, or commonwealth, or any territory subject to the administrative or judicial jurisdiction of the United States:

    (A) an official publication of the record; or

    (B) a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the record—or by the officer’s deputy—and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has custody. The certificate must be made under seal:

    (i) by a judge of a court of record in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept; or

    (ii) by any public officer with a seal of office and with official duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_44

    there yougo, folks, how to prove an official record

    Wow, I’m impressed. Trader Jack was actually able to cut and paste relevant information which proves beyond any doubt why Barack Obama’s birth certificate has been accepted as accurate, valid and authentic in U.S. Courts of Law.
    Well done, Trader Jack.

  307. avatar
    gorefan August 25, 2016 at 8:18 pm #

    trader jack: (B) a copy attested by the officer with legal custody of the record—or by the officer’s deputy—and accompanied by a certificate that the officer has custody. The certificate must be made under seal:

    Okay so with regards the President’s birth certificate:

    We have a copy attested by the “officer with legal custody of the record” and it has a certification “that the officer has custody” and it has a seal.

    Case closed.

  308. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 25, 2016 at 9:15 pm #

    I think he must have minored in Troll at UCB.

    Rickey: Which goes to show that Trader Jack requires no evidence in order to believe things which support his biases, but he requires extraordinary evidence when it comes to things which discredit his biases.

  309. avatar
    trader jack August 26, 2016 at 1:43 am #

    fact: certified copy does not mean that the original is valid.
    fact; certified copy does not mean that the court will accept it without authentication
    fact, certified copy can be rebutted after acceptance as evidence.
    fact: certified copy of COLB is prima facie for Hawaiian courts only
    fact, certified copy of BHO from HDOH has no statement indicating that signer of certification had authority to sign it
    Fact,, certified copy of BHO has no statement that the signer of the certificate is the custodian of the record
    fact: no court can authenticate a document submitted as evidence

    and that is the evidence of the superior intellect of a Cal graduate. And why they are not trolls, but simply dedicated to telling the truth about other persons beliefs that are founded on inherent biases

    LOL

  310. avatar
    Scientist August 26, 2016 at 8:06 am #

    trader jack: on the white side there is lots of information, on the African very little except one name, which might be a father of a tribe.

    still makes him a white African American.

    Your obsession with the artificial concept of “race” is belied by science. We are ALL Africans. Even you.

  311. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 26, 2016 at 8:48 am #

    Fact: none of your nitpicks amounts to a hill of beans and you know it. If there ever were a court case that required Obama’s birth certificate as evidence (and such has never occurred and never will), any necessary steps for its admission would be simply met. There is no doubt that Onaka is the custodian of records, and there is no doubt that he has repeatedly verified its contents. Further, there is no competent argument has been raised in any forum challenging the validity of the certificate.

    While I might quibble about a few things in your list of facts, there is no value in doing so. The fact that you raise such frivolous points demonstrates that your intent is argument for argument’s sake. You bring nothing to the discussion. In short, you are a troll.

    The ban goes back in force. Bye.

    trader jack: fact

  312. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG August 26, 2016 at 11:25 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The ban goes back in force. Bye.

    And there was great rejoicing in the land!

  313. avatar
    Joey August 26, 2016 at 11:42 am #

    trader jack:
    fact:certified copy does not mean that the original is valid.
    fact;certified copy does not mean that the court will accept it without authentication
    fact,certified copy can be rebutted after acceptance as evidence.
    fact:certified copy of COLB is prima facie for Hawaiian courts only
    fact,certified copy of BHO from HDOH has no statement indicating that signer ofcertification had authority to sign it
    Fact,, certified copy of BHO has no statement that the signer of the certificate is the custodian ofthe record
    fact:no court can authenticate a document submitted as evidence and that is the evidence of the superior intellect of a Cal graduate. And why they are not trolls,but simply dedicated to telling the truth about other persons beliefs that are founded on inherent biases

    LOL

    It is obvious from what is written above that Trader Jack is ignorant of what statutory duties and responsibilities a Registrar of Vital Statistics performs relative to birth records.

    Additionally: Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-17: Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4].

    Is Trader Jack aware of any judicial or administrative body or official that has determined that Barack Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth does not have probative value?

  314. avatar
    Arthur B. August 26, 2016 at 1:04 pm #

    Joey: Is Trader Jack aware of any judicial or administrative body or official that has determined that Barack Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth does not have probative value?

    Jack likes to use the phrase prima facie, but he has no appreciation for what it means.

  315. avatar
    Joey August 26, 2016 at 2:39 pm #

    Scientist: Your obsession with the artificial concept of “race” is belied by science.We are ALL Africans.Even you.

    Trader Jack fits perfectly in the alt-right description of white racists that Hillary Clinton attacked and exposed yesterday.
    Its hard to imagine anyone being dumb enough to attempt to categorize Barack Obama as being Caucasian; but I guess Trader Jack’s pathological white racism disorder is so deeply ingrained that his mind won’t allow him to see a black person as being President of the United States, even after nearly eight years in office. So Trader Jack’s delusion converts the President into a “white African American.”

  316. avatar
    Reality Check August 26, 2016 at 6:16 pm #

    Neither does about every Birther who has used the term.

    Arthur B.: Jack likes to use the phrase prima facie, but he has no appreciation for what it means.

  317. avatar
    Notorial Dissent August 26, 2016 at 7:56 pm #

    Dear Trader Jerk, certified means that they are certified as having come from the registrar(legal) holder and are true and correct copies of the document in the registrar’s possession, nothing more nothing less. They are by law presumed to be correct, unless and until it is shown otherwise. You are arguing nonsense and beating a long dead horse, give it up.

  318. avatar
    bob August 26, 2016 at 8:34 pm #

    trader jack:
    fact:certified copy does not mean that the original is valid.

    A “concern” that could be raised about literally every official record. There is no admissible evidence, however, to contradict President Obama’s birth certificate.

    fact;certified copy does not mean that the court will accept it without authentication

    President Obama’s birth certificate is self-authenticating because it contains the seal and signature of its custodian.

    fact,certified copy can be rebutted after acceptance as evidence.

    There is no admissible evidence to rebut President Obama’s birth certificate, which has actually been in admitted into various courts.

    fact:certified copy of COLB is prima facie for Hawaiian courts only

    “Full faith and credit”: Look it up.

    fact,certified copy of BHO from HDOH has no statement indicating that signer ofcertification had authority to sign it

    Nor is additional authority needed, as the registrar’s authority is established by Hawaiian law.

    Fact,, certified copy of BHO has no statement that the signer of the certificate is the custodian ofthe record

    Because the registrar’s authority is established by state law.

    fact:no court can authenticate a document submitted as evidence

    Duly certified birth certificates are self-authenticating.

    that is the evidence of the superior intellect of a Cal graduate.

    There is no indication that you possess an intellect (let alone a “superior” one), nor is there any evidence that you graduated from U.C. Berkeley.

    but simply dedicated to telling the truth about other persons beliefs

    There is no indication that you are even capable of telling the truth.

    that are founded on inherent biases

    Oh, the irony.