Skip to comments.Alabama Supreme Court: Serious Questions About Authenticity of Obama's Birth Certificates
Posted on 03/29/2012 8:49:07 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Alabama Supreme Court Justice Notes Evidence Presented Raises Serious Questions to Authenticity of Both Obama's Birth Certificates.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio's and Mara Zebest's reports were included in the Petition submitted to the Alabama Supreme Court.
Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker noted in the Order to Strike Hugh McInnish's Petition for Writ of Mandamus:
"Mclnnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the "short form" and the "long form" birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public."
I agree...BUT if Ann D 'somebody' gave birth to a child named BHO2 at the same hospital where the Sunhara child was born, then Verna Lee would have been the Local Registrar for the birth, and it's the name of the mother and the date of birth that doesn't fit the narrative.
Why can't Virginia's brother obtain a birth certificate for his sister who died the day after she was born?
Why was Virginia issued with an amended birth certificate more than 400 numbers in the future of her August 4, 1961 birth?
You are trying to make the argument that the state can issue a type of abstract document that would replicate the information on the original birth certificate. Possibly they can but I highly doubt that their laws, statues, protocols would allow them to create a digital image that was NEVER in paper form and to create this digital document they had to cut and paste information from other documents.
I am trying to make this argument because this is true. The States not only CAN do such a thing, they do it every single time an adoption occurs.
If it was NEVER an original paper document it had to have been made up of digitally scanned parts of other documents. Some parts created, some added, some imported. A Frankenstein abstract.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying it is! It is LEGAL for the state to produce such "Frankenstein" documents, and it is done routinely. According to this web page, the United States has 120,000 adoptions per year. That is 120,000 fake birth certificates created every year.
Are you saying the state has a right to take Verna Lee or the doctors signature off somebody elses birth certificate and use it for an abstract document for Obama? Thats fraud. You cant take someones signature off a different document and place it on an abstract even if they signed the original birth certificate (which I highly doubt).
I don't think they faked the doctor's signature. You are right, that's fraud and I don't think the state can go that far, but if you will consider what I am saying about Obama having an "at home birth" affidavit as his original record, then you will understand that Hawaiian law allows a parent up to a full year to have the child examined by a doctor. (I think butterdezillion can confirm this.) Stanley Ann Dunham was back in Hawaii in August of 1962.
I have been told, (though I haven't verified it myself) that if the child is examined by a physician within a year of it's birth, the physician will be regarded for legal purposes as the "birth physician."
All you are saying is that they would be getting away with breaking their own laws. That doesnt make something legal.
I do not understand why I am not getting through, but it is obvious I am not getting through. I have posted the pertinent law which Allows Hawaiian DOH officials to create fake birth certificates. I do not understand why you think they won't do such a thing.
Obama is a usurper if he is not a natural born citizen. I dont care how many days hes squatted in the oval office. I dont care how many rides hes had on Air Force One. Hes still illegally occupying the office. He is not a legal usurper because the electoral college voted for him.
I agree. Obama has not demonstrated he meets the legal requirements of office, and it is my opinion that he CANNOT meet the legal requirements for office.(His Father was not a citizen.) Furthermore, I'm not even sure he's an American Citizen at all. If he was not born in Hawaii or some other state (Which I am not convinced of) then he is NOT EVEN a citizen at all.
Congress and the electoral college dont have the power to make him eligible. They could have certified Mickey Mouse and called it legal but its still not legal no matter how many laws they break trying to tell us it is legal. They dont have that power.
They don't have that power, but they have effectively taken it so far. Hopefully "We the People" can take it back.
I do understand your point about certificates for adopted children. But there are rules, protocols, standards, laws for how each state handles and produces those documents.
They don’t have a standard for all adopted children and ONE SPECIAL ONE FOR OBAMA where they use Sally Smith’s original birth certificate and take the letter “a” and hand paste it 50 times throughout and then take a square check box and paste it over half the other check boxes from Billy Jone’s original birth certificate and then take Verna Lee’s signature from Trayvon’s original birth certificate, then scan a copy of the hand stamp text block, import it and then print out a Frankenstein abstract and then call it “legal.”
Hawaii would need to hire 50 graphic artists just to issue handcrafted birth certificates for adopted children.
They dont have a standard for all adopted children and ONE SPECIAL ONE FOR OBAMA where they use Sally Smiths original birth certificate and take the letter a and hand paste it 50 times throughout and then take a square check box and paste it over half the other check boxes from Billy Jones original birth certificate and then take Verna Lees signature from Trayvons original birth certificate, then scan a copy of the hand stamp text block, import it and then print out a Frankenstein abstract and then call it legal.
Hawaii would need to hire 50 graphic artists just to issue handcrafted birth certificates for adopted children.
They usually create the replacement document to look like an Original birth certificate. This is a normal and accepted process. If they cannot access the original, they must piece something together to LOOK like the original. On *my* document, they scrubbed all references to my original parents,their Vocations, Home Addresses, Place of their birth, etc. and substituted all new information in it's place.
Even within the law there is a great deal of leeway with what they can put on one of those documents, but according to some researchers, Hawaii has been prone to going outside of the law for quite some time. Have you seen this chart?
Posted on Friday, 6 January 2012 7:41:40 AM by Smokeyblue
When we visited the Department of Health, we weren't quite sure what we would find, since Loretta Fuddy had insisted that Virginia's records didn't exist. However, we were pleasantly surprised that Duncan's application produced several certified copies of Hawaii's new short form birth certificate (which they now absurdly call their "long form"). Upon closer inspection, we learned that the number assigned to Virginia's birth certificate is 151-1961-01180, and realized that, statistically, that number simply cannot be legitimate.
You may be right but I don’t see Hawaii jumping up to claim ownership of this Frankenstein abstract. I suspect they haven’t because they know themselves that it isn’t “legal” and they’ve broken their own laws to produce it (if they are responsible - not someone outside the DOH).
If caught, I’m sure the “legal” forgery will be their play but that will only work if he was born in Kapolani Hospital in Hawaii.
For your document, the base of your original birth certificate is the same. All they changed was the parental information. The doctor’s signature, the registrar’s signature, the seals, the stamps, the time of birth, the weight, the location, etc. are still the same. Meaning it’s not a butchered certificate. Only the areas that you would expect to be changed for an adopted child are changed.
I don’t see how you get around the doctor and the registrar’s signatures. What if this specific doctor only delivered two babies in the state of Hawaii. If they can’t use his signature from the original (sealed) certificate can they take (copy) it from the other baby’s birth certificate?
Also, if no original was available, how would they know who the doctor or the registrar were? Can’t imagine a doctor would like his signature being used for babies he/she didn’t deliver.
Did Dr. David Sinclair deliver Virginia Sunahara?
Am I correct that Verna Lee shouldn’t have been the registrar for Obama?
Sorry, I missed this post.
“BUT if Ann D ‘somebody’ gave birth to a child named BHO2 at the same hospital where the Sunhara child was born, then Verna Lee would have been the Local Registrar for the birth, and it’s the name of the mother and the date of birth that doesn’t fit the narrative.”
True. It’s all so strange.
“Why can’t Virginia’s brother obtain a birth certificate for his sister who died the day after she was born?”
I would LOVE to know the answers to this and so much more.
Hawaii gave parents and/or the local registrar (in cases where parents were not available) a month to get together all the information required for the birth certificate. If that information was not received within a month of that time period, the BC had to be stamped with “Delayed” and it would not be legally probative.
Lori Starfelt says she spoke with somebody at the HDOH who told her that they required a doctor’s examination to verify the information from at-home births. Whether that is true, I have no way of knowing for sure because Lori Starfelt is apparently the only person in the world who can get the HDOH to answer questions. What they are REQUIRED to do is to provide records and they claim no records that clarify what the procedures and requirements were for that time.
Aloha Ronnie has mentioned overhearing women talking about how they could register their foreign-born newborns as having been born in HI. Whether they had to be seen by a doctor he didn’t know. But there was a 2-month window in which they could have gotten a BC completed, with the doctor signing off on the details. And they must have done that, because the CDC’s statistics for attended and unattended births shows very few unattended births - but does clarify that an unattended birth would be one where the mother and baby were not examined by a doctor afterwards, regardless of the circumstances of the birth.
If Obama was born in HI there would be no reason at all for him to not have a HI birth certificate. If there was an adoption involved the only thing that would be different would be the names on the BC - his, and his parents. If his name is in the birth index as Barack Hussein Obama II then there is supposed to be a discloseable BC for him under that name, and adoption by Soetoro would have no bearing on that. However, we do know that the birth index has been manipulated to include birth names for at least some adoptive children. If there is not a Barry/Barack Soetoro in the birth index then it should be concluded that either he was never adopted by Soetoro or he was adopted and then unadopted - in which case the only discloseable BC they would have would be under the name Barack Hussein Obama II.
So if there is a Barry/Barack Soetoro in the birth index then there could be a BC for him under the adoptive name - in which case they could not disclose the BC under the Obama name unless they had a court order. I did request to see the court order allowing them to disclose an original birth certificate for Obama and they said there was no record responsive to my request.
It’s hard to know anything about the records when you know the HDOH is altering official records. But if anything about their records or what they’ve said in UIPA responses is true, then the adoption angle doesn’t fly.
In any event, what Candor7 said is very relevant. Even when BC’s are fabricated to cover for an adoption they are created as complete paper documents. If there was a supplemental BC created after an adoption that paper BC would be in the volume of BC’s and when somebody requests it there would be no way to tell it from any other BC. It wouldn’t have to be manipulated digitally like the Obama long-form was manipulated.
Nor would a COLB have to be forged.
Without a long form bc for Virginia, how would anyone know who the doctor was for Virgina?
Verna Lee was the Local Registrar for the region that included the hospital in which Virginia was born.
To create a supplemental birth certificate after an adoption they would take all the information from the original BC but would change the name of the mother and the father. They would not need to C&P a doctor’s signature or anything else. The place of birth, etc are all supposed to remain the same. The only thing that changes is the name of the mother and/or the name of the father - whichever relationship is altered by the adoption.
And incidentally, this is why it is important that the original BC’s on file at the HDOH are NOT on security paper and not microfilmed on security paper either. They are on plain paper. A photocopy could easily be made, a name manufactured and C&P’ed onto the work-copy, and a clean copy made to put in the file to replace the original. I’m not sure how they would handle the microfilm roll in that instance, but when they went to make a certified copy they would simply photocopy onto security paper and put the registrar’s stamp/signature and the HDOH seal on it.
The signs of manipulation that are on Obama’s long-form would not come from that simple alteration. The only anomalies we’d expect to see if there was an adoption would be perhaps a different type font for the father’s name. And there would be no reason to forge a COLB, since that’s just a computer printout with the authenticating marks on it. The COLB Obama posted had no authenticating marks at all, and the COLB Factcheck said they photographed had a seal that was C&P’ed onto the document after it was photographed with the 3-D folds.
you may find this link useful
That would seem to blow the "legal forgery" theory out of the water, at least so far as an "at home birth" affidavit angle applies to such.
I'm pretty sure that HDOH produced something. I just don't think that whatever they produced looks much like what was posted on WH servers for public consumption.
With a raised seal on it (that would probably show up on the copy).
Some government departments are very picky about the raised seal... even so far as making someone who submitted the original with a squashed seal go and send for a certified one with a fresh seal.
0’s document would not pass muster with his own government’s requirements....grrrrrr
By ‘original’ I meant the certified copy that was issued at the time of birth... decades later has folds and squished seal.
Thanks. Very clear explanation of the proper procedure.
“Without a long form bc for Virginia, how would anyone know who the doctor was for Virgina?”
I was wondering if the mother remembered the name of the attending physician.
“you may find this link useful”
Ironically, I can’t open pdf files right now on my computer. LOL
I’m sure I’ve read it in the past though.
What *IS* Hawaii doing? They are doing NOTHING about it. What would they Do if the thing was forged by someone else and yet claimed to be produced by them? Are you familiar with Sherlock Holmes? This is "the curious incident of the dog in the night" all over again!
If caught, Im sure the legal forgery will be their play but that will only work if he was born in Kapolani Hospital in Hawaii.
On what basis do you claim this? What makes you think that is a requirement? As near as I can tell, he only needed to be examined by a doctor working out of Kapiolani (up to a year later) to get that put on the document. I would also go so far as to say, if a Judge decided having a Hospital listed on the document was necessary to prevent the child from becoming aware that he was adopted, I think a Judge would order it be placed on the document even if it were not true. You must understand that the administration of most adoption law is geared to PREVENT the child from realizing he was adopted.
For your document, the base of your original birth certificate is the same. All they changed was the parental information. The doctors signature, the registrars signature, the seals, the stamps, the time of birth, the weight, the location, etc. are still the same. Meaning its not a butchered certificate. Only the areas that you would expect to be changed for an adopted child are changed.
My state does not have Hawaii's laws. I don't know of ANY other state that allows the creation of a birth certificate for someone born elsewhere, but Hawaii allows this. I would not be so certain about what can be placed on their documents.
I dont see how you get around the doctor and the registrars signatures.
I have explained how they can get around the Doctor's signature.
From what I remember reading, a child which is born at home can be examined anytime for up to a year after birth, and the doctor which examines him is designated as the "birth doctor" and signs the birth certificate. As for the registrar, once a record is created (even by the grandmother) the registrar need only designate that it is in the system.
What if this specific doctor only delivered two babies in the state of Hawaii. If they cant use his signature from the original (sealed) certificate can they take (copy) it from the other babys birth certificate?
I don't know how that works. My birth certificate contains the signature of the doctor who delivered me, but My current birth certificate was created 6 years after I was born. Whether they simply copied his name from the original, or hunted him down and had him sign the new papers, I don't know, but his signature is ON the new document.
Also, if no original was available, how would they know who the doctor or the registrar were? Cant imagine a doctor would like his signature being used for babies he/she didnt deliver.
As mentioned above, the "birth doctor" can be whomever examined the baby and certified it as healthy within a year after it was born. The registrar can be whomever signed the original birth "record" when it was first created. They did not need to see an actual baby to create the original record, and as long as they got the baby examined by a doctor within a year, (Stanley Ann attended Hawaii University in the Fall of 1962.) they could get a birth doctor's signature on the document.
Hawaii's laws are screwy. You keep getting off track with this because you, like most people, cannot believe that they are really this screwy.
Hawaiian birth certificate laws REALLY ARE THIS SCREWY.
See my response above.