That's it all right. G.F. Lavender and all. Case closed. Where did you find this link?
Posted on 08/02/2009 4:56:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
And then one of our moderators spotted this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/Fake-Obama-Kenya-birth-certificate
It has several clues, but also there's this question:
Who is E. F. Lavender?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=earth+friendly+lavender&aq=f&oq=&aqi
Earth Friendly Lavender detergent?
Wait a minute...i was thinking....this is so nuts...but perhaps the bomford certificate is a “created” red herring?
That would be a foxy way to throw the trail?
Nothing is as it seems ..that’s for sure. We are living a espionage thriller with multiple plot lines.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2306755/posts?q=1&;page=1059#1059
That's it all right. G.F. Lavender and all. Case closed. Where did you find this link?
It's a fake.
Now the question is who created the elaborate fraud in the first place.
Someone took a lot of trouble to create this document. Orly says she received it anonymously. Well now that it has been exposed as a fraud, I don't think she is under any obligation to keep his name a secret. On top of that, she may be able to sue the creator for the costs of going to England.
The link was a few postings higher in this same thread....I simply repeated it
I was thinking it would be a pretty far out scenario if THIS was created to throw the scent off the trial of the other!
One question
How does this one stand up to Thon’s questions regarding pence and other points?
Internet searches are useless at this point.
The major search engines are assisting O by covering documents as they are found. Stuff that I copied Sunday are now changed, or simply gone.
If, as you say, no one received enough electoral college votes to “qualify”, how do you explain the existence of a “President elect”. The section directs the President elect to “qualify”, or fail to qualify. If there is a President elect, then the electoral vote part has been completed. This “qualification” then applies to someone called the “President elect.”
Besides, qualifying, pertains to what is necessary to become President, this includes eligibility requirements.
President-elect of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
President-elect of the United States is the title used for an incoming President of the United States in the liminal period between the general election on Election Day in November and noon eastern standard time on Inauguration Day, January 20th, during which he is not in office yet. The title is used for the apparent winner and is finalized when the Electoral College votes in December and when their ballots are counted by a joint session of Congress in January. If a sitting President has won re-election, he is not referred to as a “President-elect” because he is already in office and is not waiting to become president. If a new President is scheduled to enter, then the current-standing one is said to hold the office on a lame-duck basis.
Constitutional criteria
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, along with the Twelfth and Twentieth Amendments govern the election of the U.S. President. The members of the Electoral College are elected by the people in November once every four years in a general election; on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, electors convene in their respective state capitals (and the District of Columbia) and in turn elect the President of the United States. The electoral ballots are counted in a joint session of Congress in early January (on January 6 as required by 3 U.S. Code, Chapter 1 or an alternative date set by statute) and if the ballots are accepted without objections, the candidate winning at least 270 electoral votes is announced the President-elect by the incumbent Vice President, in his or her capacity as President of the Senate.
Electoral College role
No constitutional provision or federal law requires electors to vote according to the results of their states’ popular vote, though some states bind their electors to their pledges by state law. Historically, there have been only a few instances of electors not casting their ballots for the candidates to whom they were pledged, and such instances have never resulted in changing the final outcome of a presidential election.
Congressional reports
Two congressional reports found that the President-elect is the eventual winner of the majority of electoral ballots cast in December. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress, in its 2004 report “Presidential and Vice Presidential Succession: Overview and Current Legislation,” discussed the question of when candidates who have received a majority of electoral votes become President-elect. The report notes that the constitutional status of the President-elect is disputed:
Some commentators doubt whether an official President- and Vice President-elect exist prior to the electoral votes being counted and announced by Congress on January 6, maintaining that this is a problematic contingency lacking clear constitutional or statutory direction. Others assert that once a majority of electoral votes has been cast for one ticket, then the recipients of these votes become the President- and Vice President-elect, notwithstanding the fact that the votes are not counted and certified until the following January 6.
The CRS report quotes the 1933 U.S. House committee report accompanying the Twentieth Amendment as endorsing the latter view:
It will be noted that the committee uses the term “President elect” in its generally accepted sense, as meaning the person who has received the majority of electoral votes, or the person who has been chosen by the House of Representatives in the event that the election is thrown into the House. It is immaterial whether or not the votes have been counted, for the person becomes the President elect as soon as the votes are cast.
Both reports make clear that becoming President-elect is contingent upon winning the majority of electoral votes.
President-elect succession
Scholars have noted that the national committees of the Democratic and Republican parties have adopted rules for selecting replacement candidates in the event of a nominee’s death, either before or after the general election. If the apparent winner of the general election dies before the Electoral College votes in December the electors probably would endorse whatever new nominee their national party selects as a replacement. If the apparent winner dies between the College’s December vote and its counting in Congress in January, the Twelfth Amendment stipulates that all electoral ballots cast shall be counted, presumably even those for a dead candidate. The U.S. House committee reporting on the proposed Twentieth Amendment said the “Congress would have ‘no discretion’ [and] ‘would declare that the deceased candidate had received a majority of the votes.’”
In cases where a President has not been chosen by January 20 or the President-elect “fails to qualify,” the Vice President-elect becomes Acting President on January 20 until there is a qualified President. If the President-elect dies before noon January 20, the Twentieth Amendment states the Vice President-elect becomes President. In cases where there is no President-elect or Vice president-elect, the Amendment also gives the Congress the authority to declare an Acting President until such time as there is a President or Vice president. At this point the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 would apply, with the office of the Presidency going to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, followed by the President pro tempore of the Senate and various Cabinet officers.
The closest instance of a Vice President-elect becoming President came just 23 days after the ratification of the Twentieth Amendment. On February 15, 1933, Giuseppe Zangara fired a gun at President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt, but missed, instead hitting Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak. If the assassination attempt on Roosevelt had been successful then, pursuant to Section 3 of the amendment, Vice President-elect John Nance Garner would have been sworn in as President on Inauguration Day (March 4, 1933).
Presidential transitions
Recent Presidents-elect have assembled Presidential transition teams to prepare for a smooth transfer of power following the inauguration. Outgoing Presidents have cooperated with the President-elect on important policy matters during the last two months of the President’s term to ensure a smooth transition and continuity of operations that have significant national interests. Before the ratification of the Twentieth Amendment in 1933, which moved the start of the Presidential term to January, the President-elect did not assume office until March, four months after the popular election.
The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 authorizes the Administrator of the General Services Administration to certify, even before the December vote of the Electoral College, the apparent winner of the November general election as the President-elect for the purposes of receiving federal transition funding, office space and communications services prior to the beginning of the new administration on January 20.
The President-elect assumes office as the next President of the United States of America upon the expiration of the term of the previous office-holder at noon on January 20. This procedure has been the subject of many misinterpretations and urban legends, such as the myth of David Rice Atchison’s one-day-long presidency, which is not only predicated upon false assumptions but is also logically flawed. Taking the formal oath of office does not affect the automatic accession to and occupation of the office of the presidency, which, in the case of the U.S. President, proceeds, ipso facto, from the expiration of the predecessor’s term.
Presidents-elect and Vice Presidents-elect receive protection from the United States Secret Service, but since the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, they already have received such protection during the election campaign ever since.
See
http://www.bomford.net/worcestershire/images/DavidJeffreyBomfordBirthCertDoc65.jpg.
Someone posted this elsewhere:
I wanted to see if I could find any images of similar documents from Kenya around the same time period that could be compared to the certificate on the web. I spent several hours with Google image search on that before I decided to broaden my search outside of Kenya-specific documents.
It was some time later that I finally spotted a thumbnail on one of the results pages that looked very much like the Kenyan certificate. I pulled up the full size image and found that it was virtually EXACTLY the same type of document.
It was a scanned image of a “Certified Copy of Registration of Birth” dated in 1964 for a David Jeffrey Bomford on a genealogy website for the Bomford family. Except that David Jeffrey Bomford wasn’t born in Kenya, he was born in South Australia. But what was even more interesting was certain other features of the document as compared to the Kenya certificate.
The names of the registrar and the district registrar were the SAME NAMES as given in the Kenya certificate save for the first initials, i.e. G.H. Lavender and J.H. Miller in the Bomford document versus E.H. Lavender and M.H. Miller in the Kenya document.
Also, the book number (44B) and page number (5733) were the exactly the same on both documents.
The image of the Bomford certificate seems to prove beyond any doubt that not only is the Kenya certificate a fake, but that whomever faked it used the Bomford certificate as the template.
5,776 posted on August 3, 2009 7:10:49 PM EDT by Technical Editor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5701 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Nuts is right. The resolution is so good on the Bomford BC,that fakery would be real hard. In retrospect we see now why the resolution was poor on the Orly BC, and it was photographed at an angle. Higher resolution would have given it away.
So what if that person that spent ‘several hours’ on google searching for a similar document is lying? And this was created to throw us off the trail?
ok, i see, photgraphed at an angle—yes it was.
Wow. this is ruthless.
How are you going to prove which one is the forgery and which one is the fake?
Not so fast. Check out this thread...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/topics
Websites have been hacked and various copies altered. Someone is spending massive time trying to keep this under wraps.
Wonder what Orly is learning in England?
Plutarch made the key point:
Wait a minute...i was thinking....this is so nuts...but perhaps the bomford certificate is a “created” red herring?
Nuts is right. The resolution is so good on the Bomford BC,that fakery would be real hard. In retrospect we see now why the resolution was poor on the Orly BC, and it was photographed at an angle. Higher resolution would have given it away.
hilarious.
not.
From the very beginning, a lot of FReepers have been urging caution about this Kenyan thing. We didn’t all charge off the cliff like lemmings.
I must admit, whoever put it together did a damn professional looking job. The question is why.
It looks like to me, the only purpose is to make us look stupid and distract from the fact that Obama has still not released the vault copy of the Hawaiian Birth Certificate.
Until he does, the pressure MUST continue. Let’s stay focused and keep the heat on!
Look, I think whoever did this—did iit for MONEY—SOLD it and made $$$
That was the motivation.
Pirates everywhere, its a ruthless world.
How do you create a forged photograph at an angle from the original that is photographed dead on?
At least now, we can get back to focusing on protesting health care
You just made my point, except that legally-speaking, he isn't a "President elect" until Congress has ratified the electoral college results. Before that, he is of no title , just someone who "supposedly" won the election. If you claim to be the "President elect" and Congress decides otherwise when the electoral college results are ratified, then you, in fact, are not, and never was "the President elect".
Once you become, legally, the President elect, you still must "qualify" before being allowed to ascend to the office of President. That can only mean one thing, meet qualification standards for the office of President which include eligibility requirements.
It is possible that they are both fakes, but it would be impossible to conclude they are both legitimate.
Orly is going to have to tell us where she got the picture. At this point I can only conclude that the Obama BC is a fraud. She says it was from an "anonymous source"; well in light of the fact that the document NOW bears all the earmarks of a hoax, it is time she came clean.
Frankly I was hoping this document was a fake, as I dreaded the constitutional nightmare it could create. But most of the arguments against it were not concrete, so I was keeping an open mind.
But now that this picture has surfaced and the picture is clearer and less likely to have been tampered, the evidence is pretty clear that the Obama BC is a fraud.
The burden has shifted. It is now up to Orly and those who think it is legitimate to prove it is. A nice CLEAR picture of the document so that we can see the seal and the type would be nice.
It is just sufficiently blurry as to hide any evidence of tampering.
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.
