Mike Zullo, in his December 15, 2016, press conference laid out a very incomplete theory of the alleged crime of the forging of Obama’s birth certificate. Some of the narrative is there, including these claims:
- Johanna Ah’nee’s birth certificate was used in the construction of a fake Obama birth certificate
- Johanna Ah’nee’s birth certificate is authentic
There is something that casts doubt on that narrative, apart from criticism of the document examination: Why couldn’t Obama’s birth certificate be authentic, and the Ah’nee certificate the forgery made from bits of Obama’s certificate and others?
If a case were presented to a jury, my alternative “theory of the crime” is just as plausible as what Zullo presented (although to my mind both are wildly implausible). This alone creates reasonable doubt.
Indeed, Mike Zullo himself should have suspicions about the Ah’nee certificate since he himself has stated unequivocally in his affidavit in the McInnish v. Chapman appeal in Alabama that certificates are strictly numbered in chronological sequence according to the date and time of birth. Zullo swore:
… Investigators learned at that time, batches of birth certificates were collected monthly, ordered by date and time of birth, and then sequentially number-stamped in a special room by a single clerk trained for the purpose, to minimize numbering errors.
Zullo said that the Nordyke twins’ certificates are authentic. Ah’nee was born weeks after the twins, but her certificate number is lower! That alone, using Zullo’s own investigatory results, invalidates the Ah’nee certificate as an authentic document.
Watch what Zullo really said at the December 15 press conference.
Indeed. Zullo is stuck having to answer the which came first – chicken or egg – question, all of which would require a clear and documentable chain of custody for both certificates. That’s an impossible standard for Zullo to achieve.
Zullo’s other problem is that he can’t point to a body of forensic research that affirms that his methodology and analysis has merit. No true document forgery expert would ever testify that Zullo’s “9 points of forgery” method is valid because there is no empirical, peer-reviewed science that supports his methodology.
But all of this is moot anyway. The only party that can verify whether of not either birth certificate is fraudulent is the State of Hawaii and it has officially verified the authenticity and accuracy of the Obama LFBC at least twice now. It doesn’t matter how many layers it has or how similar (or different) certain features are to another birth certificate, so long as the State of Hawaii has verified Obama’s LFBC, Zullo really has nothing to talk about.
An Awesome article and an awesome first comment.
I agree. I said pretty much the same thing in reply to Trader Jack on the other article. Since Hawaii has said they issued Barack Obama’s two birth certificates Mike Zullo and his paid “experts” are pissing up a rope.
Zullo actually has a tangible hard copy of Ah’Nee birth certificate. There is very little doubt that Ah’Nee’s birth certificate could be in question. However, Zullo does not have a tangible hard copy of Obama’s birth certificate, just computer generated PDF which is to be perported to be Obama’s real birth certificate from Hawaii. Not withstanding this, Zullo’s forensic teams were able to determine that parts of Ah’Nee birth certificate were lifted to produce Obama’s birth certificate.
That’s right, Zullo doesn’t have a tangible hard copy of the Obama birth certificate document. Zullo’s forensic team also does not have a tangible hard copy of the Obama birth certificate. Look what 1/2 of Zullo’s forensic team (Reed Hayes) had to say about determining document forgery:
“In short, there are indications that the Obama Certificate of Live Birth released by the White House in April 2011 may be a manufactured document or perhaps even an outright forgery. But without examining the original document housed at the Hawaii Department of Health, there can be no absolute certainty.”
http://www.reedwrite.com/index.php/2016/08/03/obama-birth-certificate/
john, Did Mr. Hayes view the official Verifications of Birth issued to Arizona and Mississippi? With those documents, there is certainty that the Obama birth PDF depiction presents authentic information that is on file with the state of Hawaii. You’re being played just like all the rest of Zullo’s gullible followers.
This stuff is from Reed Hayes from August of 2016. We know that there was a lot of going back and forth between Hayes and Zullo. Zullo also has the people in Italy. Apparently, it appears the Reed has changed his mind about the birth certificate to the fact that it a computer generated forgery.
I don’t recall Mike Zullo ever claiming to have an original hardcopy of the A’nee certificate. But even if he did, it doesn’t matter much because Zullo himself said what I reported here years ago: the security paper used on the Hawaiian certificates is readily available (I have some myself), so anybody could print an Ah’nee birth certificate onto security paper and apply a rubber stamp and buy a seal and apply that.
Keep in mind that the silent implication in Zullo’s presentation is that the State of Hawaii must have been in on the forgery (else how did someone obtain the Ah’nee document, and the unidentified others used in making the Obama document). They have all the paper, stamps and seals necessary to make a certified copy of a forgery.
Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 states that a birth certificate can be released to:
“a person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;”
Additionally, a congressional subpoena by the Chair of an authorized investigative committee doing legitimate work has the force of a judge’s court order.
Also under Hawaii law, an out of state subpoena must be approved for service by a Hawaii court judge.If Arpaio/Zullo had wanted to inspect the original, hard copy, Hawaii law provdes a means to accomplish that. If the Cold Case posse’ tried to introduce a 3rd generation digital copy image as evidence of forgery, they would be laughed out of court.
This “stuff” is still on Reed Hayes website on December 24, 2016, after the December 15, 2016, faux press conference! And again, since you posit yourself as being in the know, did Reed Hayes review the two Verifications of Birth forms issued by Hawaii that verified all of the information on the PDF image of Obama’s birth certificate? I’ll bet Hayes didn’t know about the Hawaii Verification documents.
John: And while you’re asking Zullo the hard questions, ask him, how much money was donated to his public charity called the Cold Case Posse during the past 5 years and how much of it was spent and on what was it spent?
It appears that Zullo has yet to release any reports of these purported experts.
There was even a third Certified Letter Of Verification that was prepared as an exhibit for U.S. District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate in Orly Taitz’s Mississippi eligbility challenge, requested by the attorneys for the Missssippi Democratic Party Executive Committee. That Ronald Reagan appointed Mississippi federal judge granted the defense motion for judgement on the pleadings (dismissal on a pre-trial motion).
The same Mississippi Letter of Verification was also submitted in an Amicus Brief of the Alabama Democratic Party for the 9 elected Republican Supreme Court Justices who ruled on McInnish v Chapman, the Alabama Obama eligibility appeal. Obama was upheld as eligible, 7-2.
I can vouch for the fact that Hayes didn’t know about the verifications at the time of his original report. He and I had an email exchange where I had made him aware of something he obviously didn’t know about. I then sent him copies of the two verifications and never heard back from him.
Birthers have cognitve dissonance when it comes to understanding that there is no conceivable way for them to prevail.
The Constitution of the United States gives states the absolute right to determine what records are valid and authentic (Article IV, Section 1, the “Full Faith and Credit Clause:”).
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
Under the Constitution, Congress passed 28 USC § 1738 which provides that:
Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.
The state of Hawaii has officially verified the authenticity of the Barack Obama birth record on multiple occasions:
1) The first verification statement by Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino, MD. Issued October 31, 2008:
http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/files/2013/05/08-93.pdf
2) Second authenticity statement by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, MD. Issued July 27, 2009:
http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/files/2013/05/09-063.pdf
3) Televised CNN interview with Dr. Fukino on Obama birth certificate’s authenticity.
http://youtu.be/e9D4n6_Uifk
4) Verification of authenticity press release, state of Hawaii, issued April 27, 2011:
http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/files/2013/05/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
5) Certified Letter of Verification from Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics for Arizona Secretary of State Bennett: http://archive.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf
6) Certified Letter of Verification from Registrar Alvin T. Onaka for Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/106576604
7) Certified Letter of Verification prepared at the request of the defense from Registrar Alvin T. Onaka for Mississippi eligibility challenge, U.S. District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate, Southern District of Mississippi:
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/96289285
(See exhibits on last two pages of the Motion To Supplement Counsel.
or see:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/MS-Democratic-party-moption-to-supplement-counsel-.pdf
8) Radio interview transcript, Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii naming Kapi’olani Hospital as Barack Obama’s birthplace. Governor Lingle “Its been established, he was born here.”:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right
I know of an individual who communicated recently with Hayes and also sent copies of the Verifications. I was told Hayes was asked if he had reviewed the Verifications of Birth. I was told Hayes’ response was that he didn’t recall. That’s kind of like not recalling the name of your wife, isn’t it?
Mr. C
Both of your images (Obama & Ah’nee) are purported to be copies of a certified copy.
Evidently, the image that Corsi obtained from Ah,nee is a genuine certified copy.
Zullo claims to have Corsi’s copy of the Ah’nee certificate.
It has as been reported that the copy that Zullo possesses has the genuine Hawaii raised seal.
The page size for the Ah’nee certificate is consistent with it being a certified copy whereas the page size of the Obama certificate is not.
Also the image size of the Obama certificate is different from the Ah’nee image size.
Finally, the date and signature stamps are on the front page of the obama certificate whereas these stamps are on the back page of the Ah’nee certificate.
These facts taken together give weight to Zullo’s claim that the stated identical objects were cut from the Ah’nee certificate and pasted to the Obama certificate.
I maintain Hayes acted in an unethical fashion. Under the NADE Code of Ethics he should have sought an independent review of his findings before releasing such a controversial conclusion that the President of the Untied States was guilty of perpetrating a fraud. He discredited both himself and his organization. He got paid though and that is what counts I suppose.
Hawai’i Revised Statutes §338-14.3
Verification in lieu of a certified copy.
(a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event DID OCCUR and that the FACTS of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
(d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be a maximum of one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.
(e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1; am L 2010, c 55, §1]
I found a copy of the Arpaio Zullo press conference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk3KRxTfkLM
All of the Hawaiian long forms were photocopied onto security paper, and we know that they were reduced in size. The Obama certificate was made in 2011, a decade after Hawaii stopped routinely issuing such certificates. The Ah’nee certificate was issued in 1995. So there is no reason to think that the two certificates would have been produced on the same copy machine or to the same size reduction. Modern copy machines always reduce images a little, even when you don’t specify reduction.
Of course, you have never actually seen Obama’s physical certificate and cannot really say how big it is.
We know that there is a raised seal on the official Obama Hawaii birth certificate because its been photographed: http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2013/07/birth_certificate_1.jpg
How? Obamas was issued first. Using birther methods one can claim parts of Ah’nee’s certificate were lifted from Obamas
Nice point.
However, I do see it a bit differently.
There simply isn’t enough similarity between the two certificates to make it plausible that any element on one – no matter which one – shows the faintest sign of having been copied from any element on the other one.
That’s it. That’s all. Every single word they said in their press conference was just as much nonsense as if they had stood there and claimed Obama was actually Elvis Presley with plastic surgery and dyed skin.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/judicial/authentication-of-documents/authentication-certificate-requirements.html#State
Requirements for State and Local documents include:
Must submit the original document that contains the raised and/or stamped seal of the court or Department of vital records.
Certified original.
Certified by the Secretary of State from the state in which the documents were recorded. The Secretary of State will certify to the official signing the document under the Seal of the State.
Ok ,, folks that is the requirement for AUTHENTICATION OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES, Please show me where those requirements have ever been met by the HDOH>
Come on , folks , this is your chance to show that I am wrong.
I don’t believe you can do it.
As to verification, that is a nothing item. It simply means that if you state that a fact was averred to on the document does the HDOH agree that the fact is on the document, and absolutely nothing else.
Show me any statement that was issued by the HDOH that was sworn to by anyone.
Take another look at the acceptance dates and you will find that the year is parallel with the information above it, and the month and day are not parallel, Very rare to see that kind of problem with a hand operated date stamp.
Joey, that is not the LFBC, and you can not read the seal, can you? You think that they impress seals that you can not real?
Of course, and that means that one of them may be fake, and therefore they both must be discarded and not considered to be authentic.
Perhaps you have forgotten the Nordyke bc’s which were on plane white paper, and that the printer , at least my printer will enlarge or reduce size according to my instructions . Also, I believe a printer prints the size according to the dpi set up for the printer
But, hell, I could be wrong in everything. LOL
If you note that the doctor’s attestation stated that the child was born and the time and place indicated , and that is the only fact that he has attested to.. Ergo the only fact that was attested to was that a child was born at that time and place.
And as time, and place, are two separate facts those are the only facts of the event attested to.
Good heavens, the forensic examiner does not look at other documents to determine whether the facts are true or false, they only look at the document on hand to determine whether it is true or false.
He simply says it looks like it might have been manufactured but could make not make a determination with out looking at the original document to see if the document was exactly the same as the copy.
the verification have nothing at all to do with determining whether a document is a true copy or not. How would you know if the verification was true.
Do you actually believe that when you submit a document for an analysis that the analyst looks to see if the facts are true or false.
His job is to determine whether the copy is true or false.
He can not know whether the father was the true father, and does not give a damn whether it is true or not.
Remember Zullo saying that he had to “fix distortion” on the Ah’nee certificate and then they matched up perfectly.
If he has the physical copy, how can there have been distortion?
That’s an interesting choice of words, “true copy.”
I’ve seen a Hawaiian birth certificate on banknote security paper where extracted information was hand typed on the sheet. It’s labeled a “true copy” even though nothing on it visually resembles the original birth certificate from which it was extracted.
As the term is normally used in vital records, the Obama PDF is a “true copy” so long as the information on it is true, which the State of Hawaii has attested is the case. It doesn’t matter whether it is constructed by hand on a computer, constructed algorithmically by a Xerox machine, hand typed or drawn in crayon–so long as the information on it is true.
And if any of those true copies were certified by the state (stamped and sealed), they would be certified copies, and they would be birth certificates.
One of the gaping flaws in Arpaio birth certificate jihad is that he cannot offer any rational explanation of why anyone would forge a true document. The State of Hawaii attests that they produced a copy of Obama’s birth certificate for Obama, and they attest that the birth certificate Obama presented to the public is correct in all of the information on it. So exactly why would someone go to all the trouble of forging a document that is both accurate and available? The obvious answer is that they wouldn’t and they didn’t.
Exactly what are your qualifications for making this general statement?
If Nordyke got a birth certificate today, it would be on security paper. No computer printer is involved in the production of Hawaiian long forms. They are done on photocopiers, and photocopiers all reduce images.
Except of course that’s not a logical conclusion.
Actually he said the Original laid on the copy machine was not lied up exactly or was off set when it was copied. We all know that’s easy to do. So, when that human error was accounted for the angles then matched up.
If that doesn’t make your head scratch as impossible for hand stamps I’m not sure anything would?
This is a great quote that exemplifies or underscores the failure of Anti-Birthers. We know that crime can be committed so the insinuation that there’s no possible way for Birthers to win, only elaborates the theory Anti Birthers are close minded.
Why couldn’t Obama’s birth certificate be authentic, and the Ah’nee certificate the forgery made from bits of Obama’s certificate and others]
Would it not seem prudent that Obama should be stark raving mad if that were the Case and the FBI be called in to pursue the potential to defraud the Office of President?
You see Anti-Birthers love arm-chair quarter backing excuses for Obama when there is none. If the forgery did not happen, then a falsification of record is maligning Obama and the FBI under Obama doesn’t give a sh** (?)
Obama’s Last Press Conference BLOWS UP with Birth Certificate, is meant to spotlight The Press being a Propaganda State Controlled delusion of reality. Not a single question on the narrative of cover up Obama single handedly is responsible for?
https://youtu.be/BGEMHOEil5c
Obama’s own actions to refuse to prosecute the “frame job” the Cold Case Posse has supposedly undertaken in the Law to invalidate his own identity and testify against him, isn’t a crime? Seems it’s a Frame Job involving Identity Documents of the Person in the Office of President? Isn’t that a National Security threat? Impersonating I.D. of the President?
. Gosh, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have Hearings on much less as it affects the American People. Sheriff Joe stated that in the “inflated footballs fiasco” .
So where is the cry for the FBI to investigate this Frame Job on the “President”? Where are the charges from the Attorney General to knock this guy off his rocker for False Evidence or Fabrication of Identification?
Obama does not think Identification Forgery is a crime? Especially when his identification is in question? His own actions bear out his guilt.
Nanananana.. can’t prove it fabricated. Really?
As far as Anti-Birthers using ” The State of Hawaii” as the experts accounting for validity, why don’t you just say Loretta Fuddy whose dead now in a strange plane crash? Or Why don’t you say Obama’s child hood family friend Governor Abercrombie?
“The State of Hawaii” sounds like Zullo’s claim of “Experts on two continents” lol, being everyone on the two continents or everyone in Hawaii. (?)
We all know it’s entirely possible and within reason after 3 years of dragging feet and claiming long forns did not exist in Hawaii any more that Public Officials can be Corrupt.
Assuming there can be no corruption at all with public officials again blows and exposes Anti Birther theories as delusional.
So.. what we are left with is what? Obama refusing to prosecute those assaulting the President’s Identifications? And why would that be?
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=EDTy5SGCdC8
Because if you prosecute a Defendants, they have the right to evidence to clear the charges. That little mechanism of ” Discovery” now does not bode well with Obama. These are facts of culpable evidence.
Trader Jack,
You can huff and you can puff all that you like but you can’t change the fact that you’ve been manipulated by the disinformation and speculation of a former used car salesman and a soon to be X-sheriff who raised tons of money on this false narrative. How much money did you foolishly donate to this nonsense, Jack?
That has been the Birther’s problem from the beginning and it is why they want to always single out one thing like the PDF file to talk about. They have never been able to put together any coherent theory that would explain the totality of the facts lined up against them.
Birthers are either liars, gullible fools, racists or con artists or a combination thereof.
FIFY
Please show me where those requirements have ever been required to be met by the HDOH. Which electoral votes come from a foreign government?
No, what you stated is the authentication process for those documents to be used in foreign courts, not American Courts. We require the same thing for foreign documents. We do not require the same thing for American based documents. In fact, we can take a look at two different ledgers to see the authentication process for American Documents within our court system by taking a look at the Federal Rules of Evidence:
FRE 902: 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.
Now, the Hawaii Department of Health is definently a “department” of the Hawaii Government, and Alvin T. Onaka, being the State Registrar is an officer of the State Department of Health. It does not require the signature of the Secretary of State unless it is being used in court proceedings overseas, and the overseas place requires you to get the U.S. State Department to certify it.
But since you brought up the U.S. State Department, let’s take a look at what they require to prove citizenship for passports: U.S. birth certificate that meets the following requirements:
Issued by the city, county, or state of birth
Lists your full name, date of birth, and place of birth
Lists your parent(s)’ full names
Has the date filed with registrar’s office (must be within one year of birth)
Has the registrar’s signature
Has the seal of the issuing authority”
https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/passports/applyinperson.html
Tell me, which one of those requirements does this document violate: http://origin.factcheck.org/Images/image/birth_certificate_images/birth_certificate_2.jpg
The seal, which you can see the indent, and the date are on the back of the document, which are photographed here: http://origin.factcheck.org/Images/image/birth_certificate_images/birth_certificate_7.jpg
So, please again tell me exactly which portion of that does this document violate?
I just did prove that you were wrong, both in the U.S. Courts, and what the State Department of Health actually requires. But the fact is that the very document itself is proof that the State Department of Health verifies this information. Then they have released at least 3 separate verifications to the information contained there (to the Arizona Secretary of State, the Kansas Secretary of State, and the Alabama Democratic Party, which introduced it, and got it admitted into the court system).
It actually verifies the facts that the information matches what they have on record. Or in other words, that the information matches what is on the birth certificate. The very fact that they’re verifying the information is again stating that the Government of Hawaii says that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu (island of Oahu), Hawaii. That carries the full faith and credit of the Hawaii Department of Health, and through Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, is required to be given full faith and credit throughout the United States.
That’s easy: “I certify that this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file at the Hawaii Department of Health, Alvin T. Onaka, Registrar”.
He did that on both the Short-form, and the long-form birth certificate. He did that for each of the three verification. Each one of those is him legally swearing that the information is what they have on file. He even released an affidavit stating that he personally witnessed the copying of this document.
So a doctor attested to President Obama being born in the United States over 35 years before he assumed office. Done and done.
Mr. C
The create dates for Mr. C’s two images are
birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
2011-04-27T12:09:24Z
and
Johanna-BC.pdf
2011-05-04T19:17:15-10.00
Each is purported to be a scanned color copy of a green background original.
Of course: the “points of forgery” are perfectly identical because they aren’t identical until Zullo “corrected” for human error. Of course.
Anything is possible; birthers just have no evidence that a crime actually was committed; birthers’ speculation is evidence only of an active imagination.
Of course: If the forgery didn’t happen, that’s evidence of a forgery. Of course.
So ex-con Judy believes Zullo’s fraud should be prosecuted; good to know.
As ex-con Judy has so astutely noted, Fuddy is dead, making her unable to testify.
Ex-con Judy may not be aware, but Abercrombie is no longer the governor, and therefore cannot speak for the government of Hawaii.
The possibility of corruption is not evidence of corruption; birthers peddle innuendo because that is all they have. But of course ex-con Judy lives to besmirch others.
Zullo has the First Amendment right to be an idiot; it is not a crime to hold a press conference and invite ridicule.
Cody Judy says: “This is a great quote that exemplifies or underscores the failure of Anti-Birthers. We know that crime can be committed so the insinuation that there’s no possible way for Birthers to win, only elaborates the theory Anti Birthers are close minded.”
But anti-birthers haven’t failed. The anti-birther position has been upheld in every court where it was under constitutional scrutiny. Barack Obama was cleared for states’ ballots 102 times (each of the 50 states plus D.C. times 2). Congress never held a single hearing on the president’s eligibility. No prosecuting attorney in the nation undertook a grand jury investigation for forgery or any other alleged violation. The Statute of Limitations has run out on any crime that could have been associated with the birth certificate and most importantly, there was never any state or federal law or tradition that required a candidate for president to show anyone a birth certificate, ever.
Cody Judy has confused “close-mindedness” with acknowledging when there is a closed case of fantasy ineligibility.
I would take exception to this wording. Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi was dismissed, not tried. No evidence was admitted. The Hawaii verification was filed with a brief, but the fact that it was filed does not imply a judicial determination of its admissibility as evidence. I believe it would be admissible, but that stage in the process was not reached.
The story of that submission is that Orly Taitz submitted a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, claiming it forgery. The copy was illegible, so the Defense submitted a legible copy to assist the court. Taitz then claimed that the Defense should be sanctioned for filing a document that it had to know was forged. The Defense then submitted the Hawaii verification as proof that it had no reason to think that the prior copy was a forgery.
THe Hawaii verification was not submitted as part of an argument that Obama was eligible. The case was ultimately dismissed.
Very good Trader Jack! Now let’s try a wee bit of critical thinking, shall we? What data that relates to Article II, Section 1 natural born citizenship can be gleaned from a birth certificate? I would think that any judges or members of Congress would want to know where the person was born and when they were born, hoping to see an Attending Physician’s attestation of a birth in the United States and that the newborn is now at least 35 years of age.
We will probably never know what weight, if any, Judge Wingate gave to the submitted birth certificate and Letter of Verification. The judge granted the defense motion for Judgement on the Pleadings. “The pleadings” are the briefs submitted by plaintiffs and defense which included Taitz’s allegation of forgery and the defense’s submissions as a supplement, a copy of the birth certificate and a Certified Letter of Verification.
Judge Wingate wrote a 53 page dismissal order in Taitz, et al v Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee, Obama, Pelosi, Fuddy, Onaka, et al
For the curious, it can be found here (though with a page count of 64):
https://www.scribd.com/document/260541637/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-S-D-Miss-3-12-cv-00280-117
The copies of the Obama Certificate of Live Birth that have been introduced as evidence in eligibility challenges are self-authenticated because they are signed and sealed. Signed and sealed public records can be challenged but no challenge to Obama’s birth record has been upheld.
Federal Rule of Evidence 1005
Copies of Public Records to Prove Content
The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record — or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is TESTIFIED to be correct by a witness (e.g. DR ALVIN ONAKA) who has compared it with the original. If no such copy can be obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to prove the content.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1005
Birthers just can’t grasp the very basic American legal concept that if you allege forgery the next step is to find a prosecuting attorney with jurisdiction who is willing to pursue the allegation, usually via a grand jury investigation. A panel of average citizens sitting as a grand jury should be able to hear the evidence and make a determination as to whether an indictment should be handed down.
With grand juries come enforcible subpoenas, depositions, and live testimony under oath.
It doesn’t take six years to validate or invalidate a single sheet of paper.
Thanks for the link, Arthur!
My favorite tidbit from Judge Wingate’s ruling in Taitz v Missssippi Democratic Party:
Taitz alleges as a part of her RICO claims that “George Soros, a contributor to the Obama Campaign, has harassed and attempted to intimidate her by commissioning artist Dan Lacey to paint “pancake paintings” of her. This artist has painted numerous “pancake paintings” of political figures and celebrities in odd circumstances, adorned with pancakes. Taitz says that Lacey painted graphic depictions of her in the nude, giving birth to a pancake.”
Actually we do. It is clear from the memorandum opinion that the case was dismissed for failing to meet statutory requirements, failure to state a claim, failure to specify harm cognizable under the RICO statute, and lack of standing.
The question of whether Obama’s birth certificate was valid had no relevance to the legal argument in the decision.
True but the judge did address the birth certificate in his memorandum opinion and he discussed the fact that he took it upon himself to locate and read the transcript of the Georgia eligibility trial with Administrative Law Judge Mahili.
Wingate wrote:
“Plaintiffs next point to other cases and court documents saying that other courts have exerted jurisdiction over similar claims, and this court is bound to grant her standing based on principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel. For example, an administrative law judge in Georgia heard evidence and the merits of plaintiffs’ challenge to President Obama’s qualifications in the case of Farrar v. Obama, Case No.
OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-Malihi. Judge Michael M. Malihi, Deputy Chief Administrative Law Judge in the Office of State Administrative Hearings in Georgia, held an evidentiary hearing on January 26, 2012, and allowed Taitz to present evidence of President Obama’s fraud and foreign nationality.41 Judge Malihi, after a full hearing, found Taitz’s “proof” unconvincing.42,
43
See also footnote 41: “This court has found a transcript of the hearing conducted by Judge Malihi and the Judge’s February 3, 2012, opinion in the records of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings
at http://www.osah.ga.gov/recent-cases.html (last visited Mar. 31, 2015).
42 Judge Malihi, in his written opinion, stated that “plaintiffs presented the testimony of eight witnesses and seven exhibits in support of their position. . . . The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations.” The court found that Taitz failed to qualify the alleged “expert witnesses” as experts, and that “[n]one of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony.”
Judge Malihi addressed Taitz’s legal arguments regarding the definition of a “natural born citizen,” and her assertion that President Obama does not meet that definition. Judge Malihi found that Taitz failed to show that President Obama was not born within the territorial borders of the United States, and that President Obama is a natural born citizen, eligible to be a candidate for the presidential primary in Georgia.”
Page 41: “Taitz also has submitted a subpoena duces tecum issued by the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. The subpoena is addressed to defendant Fuddy,
Director of Health, Hawaii Health Department, and demands that she produce President Obama’s “original 1961 typewritten birth certificate.” Docket no. 69-1 at 31.
Taitz, however, appears to have obtained a blank subpoena from the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, as is authorized by Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and filled in the contents of the subpoena herself. Rule 45 directs the clerk to issue a blank subpoena to a party or…”
This was, however, an argument on standinging, not whether Obama’s birth certificate was valid. Perhaps this judge was taking a potshot at Taitz by citing from the Georgia case, as he did later in the RICO section when he said “plaintiffs’ complaint and RICO statement are far from a model of clarity” and “she is a licensed attorney and presumably should have the requisite skill and competence to prosecute a lawsuit.” My point is that Obama’s eligibility had no bearing on any argument made by the Court in dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ complaints.
That single detail alone renders all the alleged “forensic” analysis done on the image pointless.
This claim is objectively false.
Gong. There is actually no objective way of making such a determination. The very act if making a digital image eliminates that possibility. In short, this claim is pure hand-waving.
As should be expected.
A completely non-daignostic detail for certified copies made decades apart.
None of these details were even mentioned by Zullo, nor do they give any more weight (what little there is) to the theory that details were cut and pasted in either particular direction.
For what purpose? Your comment is unclear, and the requirements you list appear to be a garbled paraphrase.
According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, these are the requirements for a US court of law:
Rule 902. Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating
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.
What else is necessary?
Huh? Even the original Obama short form has Alvin Onaka’s statement.
Even if we were to grant you that you are technically correct here (you are not), you should at least acknowledge that that is EXACTLY the information we need from a birth certificate to help us establush Constitutional eligibility. Born in Honolulu = NBC; born in 1961 = old enough. Residency eequirements have to be gleaned from some ither source.
Caveat emptor
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1392681754099937&substory_index=0&id=510896692278452
It would seem with the incoming transition every tool Obama has had available will now be available to the new Administration.
THE GOVERNMENT’S TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE GOVERNMENT’S TRUTH As you read this article think about Obama’s Fabricated Long Form Birth Certificate as Represented by Sheriff Joe Arpiao and the Cold Case Posse as a fabricated , forged, Fraud. Either those people go to jail OR Executive Producers, Commentators, Writers, Pundits and Reporters of ABC CBS NBC CNN MSNBC for representing Obama’s long form fabrication as Truth. Who will it be? Think about Trump now in as President and the Truth in the Government “Changing’?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-24/obama-signs-countering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act-law
Obama’s Last Press Conference BLOWS UP Birth Certificate
https://youtu.be/BGEMHOEil5c
If this is the Case, Obama just signed the Biggest Threat to a Free Press seen since WWII and has less than 30 Days to consider the full construct of Law that no longer will be a friend but will be a Prosecutor empowered by Law.
Even the Justices of SCOTUS will have need in fearing that the Truth will expose them .
https://twitter.com/CodyRobertJudy/status/813428049110650880
No doubt interesting as Sheriff Joe’s first Cold Case Posse Press Conference was not available to Judge Mahili, as an Executive Branch Judge, but was made first available in the Objection to [Motion to Dismiss] filed by myself against Obama through his hired Attorney in Georgia Judicial Courts . The Appeal Petition of that Decision in the Judicial Branch by a Candidate for President with Standing in the Democratic Party Primary. It’s a poor argument against standing to have mentioned the Georgia Case involving a Presidential Candidate with Standing in a Primary.
Also making its way to SCOTUS and denied Cert
http://codyjudy.blogspot.com/2012/07/judy-v-obama-official-us-supreme-court.html?m=1
.
It was still submitted as evidence in a court of law. I’ll agree with you that it was immaterial to the case, and ultimately had no bearing on the ruling. However, it was entered into the official court registry of documents (if I remember correctly).
I agree with you. My point was merely that if Judge Wingate read the entire defense Motion to Supplement Counsel and saw the birth certificate AND the Letter of Verification for it when the plaintiffs were alleging forgery, how could he not do what the defense had asked him to do, “take judicial notice!” 🙂
“Judicial notice is recognized in rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence for U.S. District Courts and Magistrates. Rule 201 provides, in part, that “[a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”
Under rule 201 a trial court must take judicial notice of a well-known fact at the request of one of the parties, if the court is provided with information supporting the fact. A court also has the option to take judicial notice at its discretion, without a request from a party.”
Judge Wingate’s point was that Article III Standing is a FEDERAL court requirement and not a state court requirement. It was Attorney Taitz who used the Georgia trial on the merits to argue for why she should be granted standing in Mississippi. Judge Wingate merely addressed her argument in his Memorandum Opinion and Order.
Time will tell, but if the courts are to be the vehicle for more birther attempts, it will be important to remember that Barack Obama had 328 federal judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate over the course of his two terms and those judges have lifetime appointments.
Furthermore the Trump Administration will have zero jurisdiction over vital records of the state of Hawaii. Conservatives value “states’ rights” and the federal Constitution guarantees state records are sacrosanct in Article IV.
Finally Donald Trump’s most recent statement on this issue is:
“Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, period. Hillary Clinton started the birther movement but I ended it.”
Being an idiot jackass is not illegal. It’s a good thing. We don’t have the jail space.
Because the entire farce of birtherism is taken seriously by birthers, and no one else. It’s one of Obama’s favorite joke punchlines at diners and festivals. He mocks you. He continues to mock you, and there’s not a damned thing you can do about it. In less than a month, he’ll be able to kick his feet up and just chill. Maybe write some books and do some lucrative tours. He and is family are set for life. You lost. Nothing you or any other birfoon can do or say will change that. And don’t hold out hope for Trump to lift a finger. He’s already left your lot to twist in the wind, having disavowed the birther movement months ago.
And you can bet any “federal agency” Zullo plans on leaving his faux-investigative findings to, will promptly dump the lot of it in the paper shredder, or nearest refuse bin, not to “keep a lid on things”, but because that’s what usually happens to junk mail.
Trolling is tough. If you’re not good at it, you end up countering you’re own argument.
Any official document listing place of birth and date of birth will do.
Cody Judy says: “It would seem with the incoming transition every tool Obama has had available will now be available to the new Administration.”
The “tools” used by the Obama administration were: a sense of humor; offering no defense briefs in 27 SCOTUS appeals on natural born citizenship-related issues; permitting the president’s attorney to not show up for a trial on the merits in Georgia; requesting certified copies of his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, and finally using a Mac computer and a Xerox Workcentre photocopying machine to make his long form birth certificate image available to be seen on the Internet.
What he actually said, after acknowledging that it was Mark Gillar who “figured it out” was:
The problem with this is that the angles of the corresponding date stamps on the two certificates are demonstrably not the same relative to either the background security pattern or the framework of boxes on the certificates. So what, exactly was the “adjustment” supposedly made to get the date stamps to line up “perfectly”?
Any misalignment of the hard copy of the Ah’Nee certificate on the photocopier used to produce the certified copy would show up as a misalignment of the certificate’s framework of boxes with respect to the background security pattern. In the pdf copy of the Ah’Nee certificate available online, the latter is rotated clockwise relative to the former by somewhere between 1.3° and 1.4°, in reasonable agreement with Zullo’s announced “offset” of something like “a degree and a half”. But, as far as I can see, this is completely unrelated to the angle of rotation needed to line up the date stamps on the Obama and Ah’Nee certificates.
I’ve obtained estimates for the angles of the date stamps relative to the certificates’ horizontal lines by computing least-squares estimates of the slopes of lines of best fit to sets of points along the bases of the date stamps. The resulting estimates are:
Obama left stamp: 2.02±0.08°
Obama right stamp: -2.75±0.09°
Ah’Nee left stamp: 2.70±0.07°
Ah’Nee right stamp: -2.26±0.11°
Thus, if you first adjust the images of the two certificates so that the horizontal ruled lines on both of them are parallel, you have to then rotate the Ah’Nee certificate clockwise by about 0.7° to get the left date stamps to line up as closely as possible. However, once you give yourself the liberty of rotating one of the certificates through an arbitrary angle you can always get one of the pairs of date stamps to line up as closely as the resolution of the images will allow. Therefore you cannot then legitimately trumpet the supposedly enormous odds against both date stamps lining up independently of each other, as Gillar does in the video played during the press conference, as if that’s of some crucial significance.
If, once the pair of left date stamps have been lined up, the pair of right ones then also turn out to line up very closely, that would indeed indicate that something unusual might be going on. But, in fact, they don’t. The above estimates indicate that when the left date stamps are lined up, the angle between the right stamps will be 0.19±0.18°. That is, the 50% confidence interval around the estimated angle between the right date stamps doesn’t quite include an angle of precisely zero degrees. I can’t therefore see how the relative orientations of the date stamps in these pdfs can, by themselves, provide any evidence that the pdfs were produced by anything other than two perfectly innocent and completely independent sequences of photocopying and scanning.
Since the photocopy “offset” of the Ah’Nee certificate seems to be completely unrelated to the adjustment needed to line up either pair of date stamps, I suspect it was only ever raised to provide a pretext for rotating one of the certificates through the arbitrary angle necessary to line up one of the pairs of date stamps.
There’s one other problem with all these shenanigans with date stamps which doesn’t yet seem to have been pointed out in this forum. In the copies of both Obama’s and Ah’Nee’s birth certificates, the block of text in boxes 6a, b and d, and 7e and d, which was supposedly copied across from the Ah’Nee to the Obama pdf, is very nearly parallel to the horizontal ruled lines on the certificates. Thus, if the Ah’Nee certificate is rotated clockwise by the 0.7° or so to get the left date stamps to line up, this block of text will no longer do so.
Dr. Conspiracy:
Exactly what are your qualifications for making this general statement?
The general qualification of being a Berkeley graduate, a hi IQ, a mechanic, a real estate appraiser, real estate broker, and having read a hell of a lot of books, an electrician from an electric family,and 60year radio amateur who can read schematics.
if you had the information derived from the constitution you would know that the constitution assigned to congress the duty and responsibility to set forth the requirements for the implementation of the laws of the constitution
USA Today, Top Stories of the Year by state. Arpaio and Zullo in the news.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/year-in-review-50-stories-from-50-states/ar-BBxnLOX?li=BBnb7Kz#page=4
It is worth noting that the Cold Case Posse is no longer listed on the MCSO Posse Rosters: http://www.mcsoposse.org/posse-rosters.html Nor is there any mention of the so-called final press conference on the MCSO website or official Facebook page. Our birther friends here are about to become a forgotten footnote in history.
Sanitized from the annals of history would be even better.
You misspelled the word ‘anus’.
Good Points
I think Trump will still use it for Leverage with States whose Officials covered up rather than opened up with Transparency.
The price for the corruption will be heavy and is not over with.
I predict within four years not a member in Congress or the Senate will be left involved in Cover Up and Silence of Obama- Same with Judges especially those rulings against American.
The issue will be like fermenting alcohol that gets stronger and stronger.
If Trump doesn’t move on it fast his Fortune will be lost and he’ll die a very poor man. There won’t be a second term.
America is not going to let this slide as much as a bunch of people on the inside of this would like to Hope.
The National Debt is 10 Trillion higher and the Damaged are going to come crashing in the door.
We well may see WWWIII over this very careless oversight.
It is never good when a Pillar is removed from a porch. Damages occur, and the whole house can be affected.
Not good enough.
Sorry.
Ex-con Judy believes many things that have no basis in reality.
As there was no cover up (because there was nothing ever to cover up), in four years birthers will be a quaint memory (if even that).
World-wide Web 3? Will it have a better plot than World-wide Web 2?
What birthers just can’t seem to grasp is that from a legal or legislative point of view, this issue was resolved years ago. Both state and federal courts have ruled that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and Congress, by certifying his electoral votes twice, by confirming hundreds of his appointees and by sending him eight years worth of bills to sign into law, has accepted him as being the duly elected President of the United States.
I predict that as a national political issue Birtherism dies in its sleep on January 20, 2017. There is nothing else that can be done. The Statute of Limitations has run out on any conceivable crime, impeachment will be off the table and civil lawsuits when no one can show any personal and specific damages would continue to fail just like the previous 226 attempts.
Hawaii is where all pertinent records reside and that is the only state in the Union that matters on this issue.
Congress controls the allocation of federal expenditures and all appropriations bills originate in the House of Representatives. If Congress didn’t want President Obama to spend money, they shouldn’t have sent him spending bills to sign into law.
The rest of the American economy hasn’t let the national debt impact growth. The NASDAQ (technology stocks) set another record for its all-time high today and the Standard and Poors Index of blue chip stocks is up by 167% on Obama’s watch.
Unless WWIII starts before 1/20/17, it won’t be on Obama’s watch.
I don’t see anything about date stamps or image analysis in your qualifications. I can read schematics too and I’m a member of Mensa.
Yabbut Doc, you don’t have Trader Jack’s additional qualifications of being a bigot who can fantasize any nonsensen about the President he hates.
Even if Trader Jack has the qualifications that he claims – which there is no reason to believe (my starting assumption is that birthers are racist liars until otherwise demonstrated) – his hatred blinds him to any objective truth. Through his stupidity and hate, he cannot understand that the PDF of the birth certificate is wholly irrelevant (because Mr. Obama was born in Hawai’i, as confirmed by the Department of Health and other sources) and that Zullo and his playmates have been lying about what they claim to have done and what they claim to have found.
So I’ve read around some people saying that the Italian firm specializes in child porn cases. So how long do you think before the birthers try to work pizzagate into this?
big·ot·ry
/ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
“the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry”
It is kind of obvious that you don’t know what bigotry is, as you confuse it within your own statement”(my starting assumption is that birthers are racist liars until otherwise demonstrated)
that is about as bigoted statement that I have every seen.
You claim all birthers are racist liars, and you do not know the race or honesty of all of the birthers
Which makes you a racist bigot of the first order.
I think you will find that most of the posters on this board tend to be bigots, and don’t recognize their bigotry for what it is
But, hey, you are human
Every single birther has amply shown they are dishonest: they peddle lies.
Present company included.
Trader, just how is dissing birthers racist? Birthers come in every size, shape, sex and skin color. Witness Pastor David Manning and former perennially unsuccessful political candidate Alan Keyes. Racism is denigrating someone because of a specific inherent trait. I don’t think birtherism is an inherited trait, so a birther can choose not to continue to be one. But an African American or an American Indian cannot cease to be what they were born as.
I part company with those who consider all birthers liars. Many are, some out of specific animus toward Mr. Obama, and some for cynical political purpose. These are the folks who fit H.L. Mencken’s definition of a demagogue: “one who preaches doctrines he knows to be false to men he knows to be idiots.”
Others are simply delusional, although they typically turn headstands in logic to avoid accepting facts that are plain as day; see, for example, Butterdezillion.
Not all of them, just most of them. I’ve found if you keep a birther talking long enough eventually they reveal their racial motivations. You’ve told us in the past that you’re a racist.
of course I said I was racist as I stated when I was a young man I would only marry a Swedish girl and that is what I did. Ergo, I am a racist as I think that Swedish girls are better than other ethnic girls. You may think otherwise
To add to my previous post: It is — or was — possible to be a birther and at the same time a person of good will and fairly high intelligence. I hark back to my days as a part-time temporary census worker in 2009-2010. This was at the tail end of the Great Recession, and the economy was still shedding jobs. So jobs were at a premium with finding work was very competitive, and the Census Bureau hired on the basis of scores on its own standardized test. So no dummies need apply.
Nevertheless, the census shop where I worked had several birthers. A few subscribed to the Kenyan grandmother meme, and one young woman quoted with obvious relish Rush Limbaugh’s lame joke that Obama and God had one thing in common: neither has a birth certificate.
Not that I became intimate buds with any of them, but I think I observed enough to judge that these were all-right folks.
I suspect that most of them were amenable to being convinced with solid evidence. Reminds me of a quip by Mark Twain about his younger days in a wild, lawless mining camp. “I quickly realized that this was no place for a good Presbyterian boy. So I didn’t remain one long.”
Birtherism isn’t a place for an intelligent, well-meaning and intelligent person, so nobody should remain one long.
It probably won’t be long. That NC Renegade cesspool of a site is pushing the pizzgate libel. I saw a poll today that nearly 50% of Trump supporters believe Hillary is involved in a pedophilia ring. What is wrong with these people? Many of the Trump supporters are just filth like the Birthers were. I suspect they are mostly the same people. I can’t bring myself to word it nicely. It needs to be said.
I wouldn’t go quite that far.
I would say that every single birther who has remained a birther after being exposed to the light of reality is either dishonest (which is most likely the case), or simply a wishful-thinking ignorant fool.
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Au contraire. You did word it nicely.
“9 Appellant argues that respondent made a misrepresentation by creating a false medical record when he signed the child’s birth certificate. Although the certificate names appellant as father of the child, the line which certifies that information on the certificate is signed by appellant’s ex-wife. The line signed by respondent merely states: “I certify that the child was born alive at the date hour and place stated.” This certification of live birth is the only attestation required of a physician pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 102425, subdivision (a)(8). Respondent’s signature on the birth certificate attesting to a live birth is not a misrepresentation.”
80 Cal. App. 4th 498; 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 304; 2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 339; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3375; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 4505
April 28, 2000, Decided
this is posted to show you that the doctor’s signature does nothing more than saying a child was born at a time and place, and nothing more!
In my travels, I have yet to meet this flavor of birther. Especially this late in the game.
“The prosecution argued defendant failed to prove he was a minor at the time he committed the crimes. The prosecutor argued Denis believed defendant was born in 1990 and defendant used a birth year of 1988
. The prosecutor asserted the trial court could not rely on the certified birth certificate because a page attached to the birth certificate reflected employees do not assume responsibility for the content of the document, so while the certificate was authenticated, the content was not authenticated.
Further, the prosecutor asserted Denis and Zoyla suffered credibility problems—Denis because he could not recall how old defendant was when he visited him for the first time, and Zoyla because she never knew defendant’s date of birth until, one day, she randomly asked Yolanda.”
again a case where the birth certificate was certified ,authenticated, and found the the content was not authenticated.
E054600
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO
214 Cal. App. 4th 843; 154 Cal. Rptr. 3d 314; 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 212
More direct on birth certificates
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR
37 Cal. App. 4th 1204; 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 297; 1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 804; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 6670; 95 Daily Journal DAR 11285
August 21, 1995, Decided
“The same result was reached in United States v. Casares-Moreno (S.D.Cal. 1954) 122 F. Supp. 375. Cognizant of former section 10551 (the predecessor of section 10577) and the defendant’s argument that a court order had “higher status,” the district court nevertheless stated that “the intent of the Legislature was to have such [a] belatedly established record take its place alongside the promptly recorded records. There is no indication that the Legislature intended to raise records or parts of records so belatedly established to any greater status than the normally registered records which are never, in cases of birth recordation, to be taken as irrebuttable evidence.”
Your brief citation does not support your conclusion. It merely states that something was asserted. Perhaps there is a finding, but you didn’t cite it.
I fail to see why you keep harping on this obvious point that no one disagrees with.
Birth certificates have two signatures on them, the attendant (usually a physician) and the informant (usually the mother). A birth certificate is like two affidavits.
In court, a birth certificate is analogous to the sworn testimony of the individuals who signed the certificate.
I presume that you raise non-issues to distract from the fact that you cannot impeach that testimony.
Yes,
“because a page attached to the birth certificate reflected employees do not assume responsibility for the content of the document”
Another circumstance that does not apply to Obama’s BC.
And this simply says that, as no-one here has ever denied, the prima facie evidence of a birth certificate can be rebutted. That however does not mean any wild fantasy or speculation invalidates such prima facie evidence.
It’s simply a truism that any apparent proof can be disproved, otherwise it wouldn’t be proof at all (but belief in divine infallibility or whatnot).
No, not at *a* time and place but at *the* time and place stated in the document.
Maybe Trader could explain what agency/state/country issued the birth certificate. That might help support his argument, or not.
What “trader jack” and his birther ilk cannot fathom is that not a single local, state or federal law enforcement agency in the nation has found Zullo’s “evidence of forgery” compelling enough to justify pursuing criminal charges…not even the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. And, the Maricopa County Prosecutor publically stated that Zullo’s claims were just speculation, not evidence.
The Cold Case Posse is not a law enforcement agency. It is a non-profit organization. Its members are unpaid volunteers. It has no power or authority to investigate, arrest or to seek criminal charges.
Moreover, Sheriff Arpaio, as a supporter of Zullo’s claims, is acting as an individual, not as a representative of the MCSO. It is notable that, in his position as County Sheriff he has the power to arrest, yet despite the birther claims he endorses, he has never attempted to arrest anyone for this so-called “forgery.” Nor has he ever used his official authority to secure warrants or subpoenas. What that tells you is that he knows this stuff is bullshit.
“Trader jack” and other birthers should ask themselves why it is, after five years of Zullo’s “investigation,” Sheriff Arpaio never used the law enforcement authority of his office to seriously pursue criminal prosecution. Instead, our birther friends spend their time counting the number of angels one can find on the head of a pin.
You left out the part where there was evidence that contradicted the presented certificate; the birth certificate was from another country; and the court’s ruling that the defendant wasn’t the person listed on the presented certificate. Circumstances not relevant to President Obama’s Hawaiian birth.
Trader Jack also failed to mention that the birth certificate in question was from Nicaragua. In addition, the defendant’s name is Jonis Centeno and the name on the Nicaraguan birth certificate is Jhonny Garcia. One of the issues was whether the defendant was a minor when he committed his crime, and he tried to use the Nicaraguan birth certificate as evidence that he was a minor.
As is his wont, Trader Jack brings up case which has no relevance to Obama’s birth certificate.
The case he cited is here:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20CACO%2020130319048/PEOPLE%20v.%20CENTENO
It is from Nicaragua, and the name on it is different than the defendant’s name.
Trader Jack has to go far afield in his attempts to question the accuracy of every birth certificate ever issued in the United States. Except Trump’s, of course.
Trader Jack doesn’t get it that legally there needs to be case specific evidence of an altered, delayed, or forged birth certificate in THIS instance not in unrelated instances from different times and places.
A couple of examples of inaccurate information on other people’s birth certficates casts no more doubt on the accuracy of the data on Barack Obama’s birth certificate than it does on any other person’s birth certificate.
What birthers have alleged are CRIMES and there has never been a formal, authorized by law criminal investigation. There has only been amateurish and cartoon funny press conferences held by a former used car salesman and a gullible but shrewd old sheriff in a county where no crime has ever been alleged to have been committed related to the Obama birth certificate. The sheriff has publicly admitted that he was using the issue to raise campaign funds from the gullible people who bought into the allegations of presidential ineligibility.
Birtherism is akin to believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
Yes, I know. My comment was my subtle way of seeing how, if at all, Trader would respond. I was probably too subtle in my approach, again. I intentionally included “country” in the list of who might have issued it since I knew it was Nicaragua.
I do wonder how he could have missed that, even if he did not read the full opinion. It would have been difficult to quote it without realizing it was not a US cert. Either he copied somebody else’s quote, has even worse comprehension skills than I original thought, or he knows it was not issued in the US and he lying.
No, I was not lying, as the court was a California court case, and the authentication was demonstrated to prove the contents of the birth certificate were not authenticated,
Thanks – I had a feeling of déjà vu when I read the case.
I also noticed that when Trader Jack provides a citation for his quotes, he never provides that case name. That makes it more difficult to locate the case and see the quotes in context.
You cited assertions, not rulings. And you failed to acknowledge the main ruling that it wasn’t the defendant’s birth certificate.
Given you having already been corrected about this, your repetition was yet another lie.
You are being disingenuous.
The birth certificate was from Nicaragua, and the birth certificate had a disclaimer that the issuing agency did not take responsibility for its content. Obama’s birth certificate contains no such disclaimer.
In addition, the birth certificate was in the name of “Jhonny Garcia” and it was introduced as evidence by defendant Jonis Centeno, who claimed that it was his birth certificate.
The trial court stated that it had a problem with the birth certificate because the name on the certificate was Jhonny Garcia, which did not appear anywhere on the documents before the court. The court looked at the probation report, which indicated defendant did not have any aliases. The court reasoned if defendant were also known as Jhonny, then defendant should have told Basso. The court also expressed concern that Denis’s name did not appear on the birth certificate, when “everybody knew he was the father.” The trial court said, “So I accept this. This is a birth certificate of someone. Is it the man before me in court today? I just don’t have enough evidence to tell.”
Thus the case you cited has absolutely no relevance to Obama’s birth certificate. You knew this when you posted it. You knew that we destroyed your claim of relevance when you brought up the Centeno case the first time around, ten months ago.
You believe that you are intelligent, but you’re not intelligent enough to outsmart us.
So, in other words, you did not read beyond a few words?
But, just for kicks, let see how many times your wrong on your citation, of assertions.
1. The birth certificate was from Nicaragua. I do not recall Nicaragua becoming a state so, it would not have the same assumptions that a US Birth Certificate would have.
2. It had an attached paper that the employees did not assume responsibility for the content. US Birth certificates and the President’s do not have such a piece of paper. Hawaii has already verified that the information is accurate.
3. There was a great deal of conflicting stories from people who knew the defendant and family members. Even a US birth certificate could be refuted if there was sufficient evidence, especially from those with direct knowledge. Doubts from birthers would not be sufficient.
4. And what was the holding, Trader? The certificate may be valid, however, there is a large detail you never mentioned.
Not quite, but close, The signing doctor is attesting only to the tine and place of birth,
The signing patient only certifies as to the information on the document above the signature, and does not certify anything below the signature.
So, as you can see, there are some things on the birth record that are not analogous to sworn testimony.
For instance there no statement that the information below the signatures line is true and accurate, and that leaves a possibility of fraud or alterations, which I do not claim happened , but it is still a possibility.
So, they didn’t teach you what the word “analogy” meant back there at Berkeley?
The attendant attests to the part he fills out, and the informant attests to the part she fills out.
Your comment was dumb, even for you.
Precisely the information required to determine President Obama’s natural-born citizenship.
It is possible that one day you will stop spewing lies and innuendo, but the probability of that appears to be extremely low.
I’ve already looked at it all, very closely.
Your claim is simply nonsense. There’s no “problem,” except one in your own mind.
Correction: These error estimates seemed suspiciously small to me, so I redid the calculation, using a different procedure, and obtained the following revised estimates:
Obama left stamp: 2.02±0.23°
Obama right stamp: -2.75±0.24°
Ah’Nee left stamp: 2.70±0.20°
Ah’Nee right stamp: -2.26±0.30°
which certainly seem more credible, although I haven’t yet been able to track down where the error occurred in my initial calculations.
And this now becomes 0.19±0.49°, so the 50% confidence interval around that estimated angle does indeed include an angle of precisely zero degrees.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, the changes to these error estimates make no substantial difference to the conclusions that can or can’t be reasonably drawn from the statistical analysis.
Scrub all that. It turns out that the error was in the second set of calculations, not the first. After including a factor I had inadvertently omitted from the second calculations, they turned out to agree with the first.