Xerox 7655 Overview Picture (Obot claims to replicate Obama LFBC pdf w/floating signature)

Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored ^ | August 6, 2013 | NBC

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

What if NBC is programming his computer to make you think he is replicating every PDF anomaly? Ever consider that?

[GeorgeWashingtonsGhost]

And what caused halos? I know what caused the halo around all bitmap characters and lines in his bc. It occurred when someone took the black areas of text and lines which were originally on a white background then ‘selected/wanded’ them (’tolerance’ set to high %)in Photoshop or Illustrator (’contiguous’ OFF) and dragged them onto the ‘green security paper graphic’ layer.. In doing so, the white areas surrounding all text and lines carried over onto the green security paper graphic layer. I am convinced this is how the halos occurred, and have replicated this myself. No doubts about it, whatsoever. Whoever did this didn’t know that halos can be avoided by simply dragging the layer and changing layer opacity so white disappears which tells me the graphics person wasn’t a top tier graphics person. Probably Alex Okrent who died of a sudden heart attack (same as Breitbart) at the age of 29.

[GeorgeWashingtonsGhost]

The bc INITIALLY issued by the WH had a blue background. Someone decided it should look more authentic, so they ADDED a green security paper graphic as the background. This itself was FRAUD, not on the original bc, and done to TRICK Americans into thinking this is how Hawaii issued 0bama's bc..

The addition of the bogus green security paper background was forgery. Set this entire Xerox copy crap aside, the green security paper graphic is criminal all by itself.

[butterdezillion]

The attorneys can’t submit any more evidence in the cases at this point, if I understand correctly - or else I would have a bunch of stuff I could give Klayman to use for that purpose. Specifically the evidence showing that the letters of verification were never lawfully certified. They have Onaka’s signature (initialed in 2 of the 3) but not Onaka’s raised seal. They have Fuddy’s raised seal (that the statute says must be next to the director’s signature) but not her signature. So they’ve got mismatched signature and seal, which doesn’t qualify it as lawfully certified under Congress’ codified standards for Full Faith and Credit, which applies because these are documents from one state submitted in a court of another state.

But Klayman informed Bob Bauer BEFORE the DNC Convention that Onaka had effectively confirmed that Obama’s BC is non-valid by refusing to verify facts he is required to verify if they are claimed on a valid BC. I’ve got a bunch of stuff about it on my blog at http://www.butterdezillion.wordpress.com . I’d fetch the exact link but my computer is slow as molasses again and I don’t have time to wait around for it. Darn thugs. This happens every time I start posting a bunch of stuff about this issue.

[butterdezillion]

OK, the computer finally let me on my blog. The link to Klayman’s letter to Bob Bauer is at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf

A shorter explanation is at http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wheel-of-fortune-v-family-feud-final.pdf

[BigGuy22]

BZ, I think you are confused. Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence says:

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.

Note that it says "purported to be," and there is no question that the Letters of Verification bear items that are "purported to be" a stamp and a seal.

That leaves an opening for the other side to counter the documents' presumption of authenticity. Since that hasn't been done, the documents are legally considered to be authentic.

[BigGuy22]

(my mistake, “purported” should be “purporting”)

[Ray76]

The Letters of Verification state that information in an internet picture “matches the original record in our files”. A BC attested “a complete and true copy” with seal as not been presented.

[BigGuy22]

Ray76: “The Letters of Verification state that information in an internet picture “matches the original record in our files”.”
__

That’s correct. And the information in the original record in the files is entitled to “Full Faith and Credit” under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Further, §338-14.3 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes states: “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.”

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

What about the one Savannah Guthrie held and claimed she felt the raised seal?

[Ray76]

Never seen again

[BigGuy22]

“Never seen again”
__

True enough. And what would you expect? It’s an original official document, and it was handed around to the White House press corps so that they could see it for themselves. Official documents aren’t usually made available for hands-on examination by the general public.

Now, the sensible thing to do would have been to photocopy it and give a copy to each reporter there, as well as to scan it and post an image online.

Oh, wait...

[Ray76]

We all know that “matches” does not imply complete.

Here it is again:

I have a paper with 5 items on it

You have a paper with 3 items on it

Your 3 items match 3 of my 5

What about my other 2 items?

What kind of items? Amendments.

We need the facts, not what they were made to appear as circa 2006. A BC attested “a complete and true copy” with seal provides those facts.

[Ray76]

“Official documents aren’t usually made available for hands-on examination by the general public.”

They are to a court or to state officials.

Instead they’ve been made to play twenty questions based on an internet picture.

[BigGuy22]

Well, remember what the law says: “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.”

So, even if the applicant requested verification of only the place of birth and nothing else, if the DoH verified it, it would be a self-authenticating document and constitute prima facie evidence that the President was born in Hawaii.

Of course, like any prima facie evidence, it creates only a rebuttable presumption. If you wish to counter it with evidence that he was not born in Hawaii, you're free to do so, but until you do, the presumption holds and he is legally considered to have been born in Hawaii.

[Ray76]

Obama’s lawyers going to Hawaii for the BC was all theater. The “BC” is for public consumption, not legal consumption. Why is that?

[BigGuy22]

“Official documents aren’t usually made available for hands-on examination by the general public.”

They are to a court or to state officials.
__

Nevertheless, what I said was correct. Official documents aren’t usually made available for hands-on examination by the general public. They are not even usually made available to a court or to state officials. They are produced when legally required, or when the person possessing them chooses to do so, but the vast majority of original records never see the inside of a courtroom.

The Letters of Verification, on the other hand, were made available in court filings. If you are aware of their authenticity having been successfully challenged, pleased let me know. Otherwise, they establish the truth of the information they contain.

[BigGuy22]

“The “BC” is for public consumption, not legal consumption. Why is that?”
__

I don’t speak for the President, but I think I can hazard a pretty good guess.

The COLB is sufficient under the law to establish a person’s birth data. You are right — there was no legal necessity for a long-form, despite what others might say.

But there was a segment of the public clamoring that they would not be satisfied until they saw the LFBC. Rightly or wrongly, the President decided to try to satisfy them.

[Ray76]

After months of push-back and guff from Hawaii Bennett was cowed into asking for a "verification letter".

Bennett specifically requested, "please verify that the attached copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama is a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files."

Onaka replied, "I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files"

Onaka refused Bennett's specific request.

[BigGuy22]

All that Hawaiian officials can do is what Hawaiian law permits. What the law says is that “the department of health, upon request, shall furnish ... 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.”

Regardless of the fact that Bennett requested “a true and accurate representation of the original record in your files,” letters of verification under Hawaiian law do not purport to be accurate representations of records. Rather, they are verifications of the information contained in the records, and that’s just what the letter does.

And, because it is a self-authenticating document, unless it is successfully rebutted it establishes the truth of the information it contains.