Posted on 04/07/2013 7:40:14 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Different people in the office printed out the verification.
Arizona - May 22, 2012 - GK
MDEC - May 30, 2012 - ATO
Kansas - Sept. 14, 2012 - BP
If as Seizethecarp suggests they were trying to hide their tracks on the May 30th verification, why inital the Sept 14th verification with “BP”. In fact if you wanted to hide your tracks why initial any of them at all????
Most DOHs do not reveal what meaure they take for security.
I’m basing it on something I was told by bluecat6.
“Seals that are slightly raised and embossed. These are made specifically NOT to copy or scan. As we have seen the ‘stamp’ from both Nebraska and Hawaii show easily when copied. This defeats the purpose of document fraud. You do NOT want these features to easily copy or scan. Embossed emblems that are only slightly raised off the paper are all but impossible to scan.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2974657/posts?page=316#305
Comment #305.
Not much, just this from the Daily Beast:
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=3005060,135
Apparently, that guy didn’t work on Breitbart’s autopsy. The part about a family member telling them to check for poison leads me to think that it was probably someone in his family that poisoned him, since it’s similar to the recent lottery winner poisoning case.
“Are you saying that Dr. Onaka is not aware of the verifications?”
If you were a state official and the AG of another state asked you to verify whether Barry’s claimed BC was legit, would you regard the matter as significant enough to warrant your personal verifiable signature and not a signature stamp accompanied by unverifiable initials?
Have you ever seen a case where a person denied that initials were theirs and a handwriting expert authenticated the initials? In my experience a full signature is present on at least one page of a legal document when initials are used on other pages.
Use of a stamp and initials obviously provides a legal escape hatch of “plausible deniability” and a delaying opportunity in the event of any forensic challenge to the verification. Onaka can say “I didn’t use my stamp or authorize use of my stamp and those are not my initials.” How can it be proved that he is lying when his actual verifiable signature is not on the document?
“If you were a state official and the AG of another state asked you to verify whether Barry’s claimed BC was legit, would you regard the matter as significant enough to warrant your personal verifiable signature and not a signature stamp accompanied by unverifiable initials?”
It wasn’t an AG but SoS that requested the verifications, and maybe I would take it seriously. Then again if I thought the SoS was involved in a publicity stunt or trying to placate a group of people who had for four years been vilifying you and your office and bothering your employees maybe not.
“Have you ever seen a case where a person denied that initials were theirs and a handwriting expert authenticated the initials? In my experience a full signature is present on at least one page of a legal document when initials are used on other pages.”
How many Hawaii verifications have you seen? What is the standard procedure for Hawaii to create a verification?
BTW, the Arizona and Kansas verifications are not stamped. Only the MDEC verification going to a Federal Court has a stamp and the initials ATO. Coincidence?
“Then again if I thought the SoS was involved in a publicity stunt or trying to placate a group of people who had for four years been vilifying you and your office and bothering your employees maybe not.”
The appearance of deliberate creation of plausible deniability arises when a former federal LEO with 50 years experience who is Sheriff of one of the largest counties in the country claims to have proof beyond doubt that the image Onaka was being asked to certify is forged and Onaka won’t step up to personally sign the verification or declare that it is a true and correct copy. Instead Onaka says the date “matches.” Not the same thing.
If Zullo’s claims of having a laboratory certification of the forgery are true and an AG of a state proves it up in court in a criminal case, then Onaka is in trouble.
“Most DOHs do not reveal what meaure they take for security.”
Huh? Is this a joke.
Most explicitly indicate what anti-fraud measures on the document - on the document itself.
I have scanned and copy lots of BCs (national level youth sports).
If a document has a watermark it usually says “This document has watermark when help at an angle.” etc.
Hawaii used to have a much more elaborate BC form that currently in use. Peter Boy BC showed this clearly.
The state of Hawaii used to show the Peter Boy COLB since it was forced open in a challenge by a newspaper. They have since blocked direct access....telling.
“Most explicitly indicate what anti-fraud measures on the document - on the document itself.”
Does Hawaii use micro fine printing in the border of the COLB? Yes or No
Do they use tamper evident toners? Yes or No
Do they use bleed through toners? Yes or No
Do they use bank note quality security paper? Yes or no
Do they use integrated security threads imbedded in their paper? Yes or no
Do they use patterned green security paper that is colored to disappear when copied? Yes or no
No to all with current versions.
You and find the security paper used on Amazon. Green cross-hatch without void-secure feature. The the void-secure feature was used when Peter Boy’s COLB was generated.
The stamp is not a registered embossed die.
The state of Hawaii ‘security’ features are almost non-existent.
The bleed through of the date stamp on the COLB would suggest they use bleed through toners. They may have been using them since 1995 when the WND BC was issued since there is clear bleed through of the information onto the back of the document.
There may be micro type printing in the border of the COLB.
There may be fibers woven into the paper.
The AP copy of the long form shows that the green security pattern disappears when copied.
The hard to copy raised seal appears to be one of the security feature.
I doubt that Hawaii buys their security paper from Office Depot, they more likely have a contract with one of the paper supply companies (Appleton, Troy Group, etc.). Most of them have a pallet of security features that a customer can pick and choose between. Here is an example of the type of contract that South Dakota has with the paper vendor, Midwest Banknote Company.
http://www.state.sd.us/boa/opm/documents/N23916_SecurityPaper_000.pdf
Here is the list of features available from Midwest Banknote
http://www.midwestbanknote.com/features
Does Hawaii have a similar contract with a paper supplier? I would expect so.
Without actually physically examining a Hawaiian BC, it is impossible to tell what security features it has.
If I e-mail the Hawaii DOH do you think they will tell me what security features they put in their paper?
obumpa
Given that the COLB presented is a fraud almost anything is possible.
The Daily KOS image IS a scan of the actual piece of paper presented by Fact Check. This scan helps confirm the fraud.
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
A major problem is the PRINTED extraneous elements that appear in the Fact Check images and the Daily KOS scan. The fact that these extraneous elements are PRINTED elements that are part of the image that show up in no manner in other authentic COLBs is one of the signs of fraud.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2824900/posts?page=27#27
See if this looks familiar:
http://www.securitypaperstore.com/designsecureamp8482-basketw8483.html
Here is the voidsecure version of same design. This will create words ‘VOID’ when run through standard copier.
http://www.securitypaperstore.com/voidsecureamp8482-basketweave-pattern-g8482.html
Another source for the basketweave ‘security paper’....
http://paperworks.com/store/products/green-8-12x11-24lb-basketweave-security-paper-500pkg
Compare Hawaii’s simplistic document with that of another state.
Here is a good one for comparison:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/275045/BOBBY-JINDAL-BIRTH-CERTIFICATE.jpg
Here is the 1991 created COLB for Peterboy.
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4746/peterboycertificate.jpg
Notice that it looks much more like Jindals and definitely includes the void-secure function that is not now present on Hawaii documents.
For what ever reason Hawaii has chosen to dumb down its state-issued documents since 1991.
Hawaii’s documents where more secure in 1991 than they are now. When and why did they change?
How come peterboys does not have a raised seal?
It may have a ‘raised seal’ and the actual almost certainly does.
However, the image seems to be cropped to the critical part of the document. So it could be cropped out.
But also an embossed raised seal is usually very subtle - by design. The intent is for it NOT to show up in a copy or scan process. The goal of that seal is usually to make reproduction of the document difficult. The ‘seal’ used by Hawaii currently is a DE-EMBOSSED pin stamp that easy to reproduce mechanically. It is not a custom registered die. Most states use a registered (not generally available to the public) die that very subtly creates the seal.
Good embossed seals do not reproduce easily either via standard photocopy or via scanning. Look at Bobby Jindals certified copy of his certificate. It must have a seal but it does not jump out at all. In fact, I have tried to scan certified copies with various seals from some states. The seal never fully reproduces - especially under standard scanning settings. Only under custom settings is there any sign of a raised seal and it is very faint and never produces the full image. You get just a slight shadow that is still very difficult to see without a very high res, large scan.
So looking at the Peter Boy document, that used to be publicly available at the Hawaii DOH site itself for years, you find at least 3 major differences with more current COLBs:
1. the border. The Peter Boy border is more consistent with other states in use at the time and even today.
2. The use of void-secure paper. This function is common official state-issued documents from other states. The function is designed to ensure photo-copied documents clearly show they are duplicates and not the document issued by the state. This is common in other states. It is not in use on more recent Hawaii COLBs.
3. The Peter Boy documents shows a lack of simplistic pin-oriented ‘stamp’ or ‘raised seal’. If a more standard embossed, registered seal was used this is expected. One goal of this feature is to avoid duplication and the ability to see the stamp in photocopied or scanned documents. In a ‘secure’ document this stamp should not easily reproduce.
Having worked with elite level youth sports at a national level I have handled many BCs from different states. When certifying your players in national level events review of BCs is standard. Every event made it clear that the only acceptable document was the ORIGINAL STATE ISSUED (no hospital issued ‘memento’ certificates). The organizations would not accept photocopies and ALWAYS checked for the raised seal. I have had to have originals over-night delivered when parents failed to understand the requirements.
It is nothing less than amazing that these youth sports organizations check birth documents in far more detail than state government election functions. A child presenting the same ‘evidence’ as Obama could not play official Little League baseball or be on a USHockey certified roster. Those organizations would not accept the current ‘documents’ at all.
Placemakr.
Note: this topic is from 4/07/2013. Thanks Cold Case Posse Supporter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
