“However, I am certain that the document he presented to show us that was born in Hawaii is a digital fabricated fraud.”
It wouldn’t matter if Obama drew it with a crayon. A picture posted on the web is not evidence. It isn’t a crime, and it isn’t what the court would rely on, so the court doesn’t care. Obama could post a picture of dog poop as his birth certificate, and no court would care.
If we were talking about a picture posted on YouTube, or Yahoo, or even on FR, you would be correct.
But, that's not what we are talking about. The "picture" in question was posted on an official government website, whitehouse.gov. This is not only a government website, it is the official website of the White House and represents the Office of the President of the United States. NOTHING gets posted on that website that does not have the approval of the president and/or his senior staff.
Which means that, barring the website being hacked (something the WH never claimed), the forged "picture" was posted with the knowledge and approval of senior WH officials, if not the president himself.
You're a smart guy, you retired from the Air Force, so you know how tight the security is on government websites. So, the fact that a forged document was posted on a government website with the knowledge and approval of senior WH officials (if not the president, himself), strongly suggests a deliberate attempt to commit fraud.
And, that, Mr. Rogers, is something that a judge WOULD be interested in.