Orly Taitz responds to forgery charges

To: SirJohnBarleycorn

"If she is now publicly affirmatively claiming the Bomford document is a fake created to discredit the purported Kenyan document, in my opinion she is making a serious tactical mistake which could come back to burn her and damage her credibility."

How so? - - The Aussie doc is absolutely a fake, and didn't exist before Sunday mid day.

81 posted on 08/04/2009 1:28:43 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)

To: Red Steel; LTC.Ret

Residence is an iffy question. If her parents lived in Hawaii and she considered it her permanent residence that may have been enough, particularly if she was a student.

Remember that Robert Kennedy was elected a Senator from New York when he wasn't living there. A post office box or a rented room or a Kennedy-owned property sufficed to make the claim that he was a New York resident.

As to the aliases: is this another case of putting the cart before the horse? That is to say, do we actually know what he wrote on his bar application? Has anyone actually seen that application? Or are you just assuming that he left out his other name? So many conjectures come up once once and then people assume that they are proven facts. It's worth asking where the documentation is.

I assume that if Obama was called Soetoro for a time, he should have listed it (though I have no idea whether he did or not, and don't know if anyone really knows that for sure), but there is a gray area. Gerald Ford was known as Leslie King at birth, but he never used the name himself. Would he have had to mention that?

82 posted on 08/04/2009 1:29:13 PM PDT by x

Unfortunately you have a predisposition to judge OTHER people and their qualifications.

83 posted on 08/04/2009 1:32:28 PM PDT by traderrob6

To: editor-surveyor

Interesting, but not conclusive.

84 posted on 08/04/2009 1:32:43 PM PDT by Plummz (pro-constitution, anti-corruption)

The entire episode is a setup with the Aussie character.

Read through this to see how we know the Aussie one is fake.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2307402/posts

85 posted on 08/04/2009 1:32:44 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)

In most states, the 91st day creates defacto residency.

86 posted on 08/04/2009 1:33:30 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)

They grabbed it too late. Ask Jimrob to show you the original. Better yet, read through here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2307402/posts

87 posted on 08/04/2009 1:34:20 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)

You did not answer my last post. You may be correct on some of the assertions, however you have not answered the most salient and are continuing to cloud the waters. Please answer on this thread. From my post to you:

Have to run. Leaving your "commercial" criticism aside, you are saying then in your "professional" opinion that the Australian photo is untouched and legitimate? Is that what should be gleaned from your very long post? You did not see photoshop tags (editable by the way) so this was real and not manipulated? From you post it sounds like you are calling the Kenyan document a fraud, but the Australian is real. Was that the conclusion you reached in your very "long" post? Is this what you are telling me and the Freepers on this thread?

Your saying this is the fraud (Kenyan)?

Your saying this is the truth (Australian)

Anticipating your expert and reasoned reply!

I would really like to know what you really think about these images. These are the originals. The Kenyan can not be proven one way or the other. The Australian is glaring to any layperson. I will give you a hint. There are more than a few problems with the bottom photo.

88 posted on 08/04/2009 1:34:34 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the occupation media.)

To: SirJohnBarleycorn

“Orly should not be putting her reputation on the purported Kenyan document.”

I would tend to agree.

The verifiers should stick to making Obama bear the burden of proof.

89 posted on 08/04/2009 1:35:17 PM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (Defend America from the Communist.)

To: allmendream; pissant

"World Net Daily was hacked?"

WND gets hacked about every three minutes.

An image displayed can be anywhere in the world that has a T1 or better connection.

90 posted on 08/04/2009 1:37:32 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)

To: SirJohnBarleycorn

Actually, Orly is claiming the report, not the document,
was created to discredit her efforts, not discredit the Kenyan BC.

“Bomford report was created to try to discredit my efforts”
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

For more about the David Bomford BC:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2307694/posts

91 posted on 08/04/2009 1:38:55 PM PDT by algernonpj (He who pays the piper . . .)

To: editor-surveyor

So in other words nothing from Whirled nuts daily can be trusted.

Thanks for the confirmation.

92 posted on 08/04/2009 1:39:43 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?)

To: McGruff; editor-surveyor; pissant

1: Why did she show up on MSNBC out of the blue for her first interview?

The antics of Orly Taitz aren't something that should really concern us anymore. At this point she is a liability to us, and a convenient example to the MSM of a fringe conspiracy kook.

Now that there is no doubt that the “Australian” BC is a fraud, why not have the moderator change the title?

So, Mr. Bomford is lying about his Australian BC? Or is the Australian reporter fooling us with a fake Mr. Bomford?

______________________________________________________

DAVID JEFFREY BOMFORD: It's little old me and my mum and everything else up there. Oh I definitely confirm that the birth certificate was mine. That was quite easy to see - my address, even the style of the birth certificate was an old South Australian one.

So it's quite easy to identify that it's mine.

DINA ROSENDORFF: And looking at the fake Kenyan birth certificate what do you make of it?

DAVID JEFFREY BOMFORD: It's definitely a copy of my certificate. It's so laughable it's ridiculous.

93 posted on 08/04/2009 1:40:10 PM PDT by Plutarch

"So, Mr. Bomford is lying about his Australian BC? Or is the Australian reporter fooling us with a fake Mr. Bomford?"

Quite possibly both, but it is also very clear that he didn't confirm anything that is falsified on the web published image, which is the real issue. The web image is a fake.

94 posted on 08/04/2009 1:50:05 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)

You can put your faith in David Weigel all you like. He is a lying sack of sh*t.

95 posted on 08/04/2009 1:54:33 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)

"So in other words nothing from Whirled nut allmendribble can be trusted.
Thanks for the confirmation."

Don't mention it. (and change your pants please)

96 posted on 08/04/2009 1:56:25 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)

To: SirJohnBarleycorn

she is making a serious tactical mistake which could come back to burn her and damage her credibility.

I wasn't aware she had any of that -- credibility, that is. Did you catch her shrieking on MSNBC last evening? A professional doesn't shriek or scream if they wish to be taken seriously. And why on earth would anyone with "credibility" agree to appear with Schuster on MSNBC, or Colbert? Did she actually think she wouldn't be attacked or mocked? Or she just so deparate for attention she'll appear anywhere she's invited? I'm almost expecting her to pop up next on state-controlled Russian TV, since that's where she's headed.

From her so-called "debunking" --

2. More then one person had certified copies of this document.

Who are these persons who have "certified copies?" She originally stated that one source had "authenticated" this document -- from what, a photo? And who is this "authenticator"? -- certainly no credentialed document expert would be foolish enough to authenticate a document from a photograph. And a photograph is all that Orly has, since she filed a photo of the document, same as posted on the net, with her latest submission to the court.

97 posted on 08/04/2009 1:59:18 PM PDT by browardchad

To: editor-surveyor

Typical of the type of high brow commentary you bring to a thread.

Nothing from WND is to be trusted if they are so easily “hacked” and all their errors can be attributed to “hackers” and no mistake needs to get corrected in any sort of a timely fashion because it was from “hackers”.

Evidence that would debunk the conspiracy theory is just further evidence of HOW DEEP the conspiracy goes!!!!

98 posted on 08/04/2009 2:00:29 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?)

To: editor-surveyor

That point has been circumstatially proven beyond a shadow of doubt. - Care to try again?

ROFLMAO!

Freeper "PA Engineer" claimed here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2307402/posts?page=1390#1390) that the Bomford document was photoshopped based on the following info:

Hold the Presses! My daughter just showed me something.

She had me open both the Australian and Kenyan documents in Photoshop Elements. From there she had me under the Image menu “Divide Scanned Photos”. Nothing appeared on the Kenyan document, however six layers pealed away from the Australian one.

These layers all showed distortion.

You can go on and read the rest of the post there.

But then freeper "rudman" countered here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2307402/posts?page=1903#1903) with information that that tool in Photoshop does NOT detect layers, it separates out pictures.

“Divide Scanned Photos” is for separating out multiple pictures on a scanned document. It will find seemingly natural borders and break them out to minimize the time needed for scanning.

Now do this - take your phone bill, scan it in, and do the same exercise. See what i mean? Any flat document with seemingly blockish borders will break out.

All I am saying is that the work done earlier on the thread with the signatures and the creases are much more telling than this.

Just a last thought - if the australian certificate is really authenticate - or not - that really has no bearing on the kenyan certificate. If that can be corroborated - then there it is.

So the proof that the Bomford doc has been photoshopped appears lacking.

Also, you can go to the Internet Archive and find the Bomford web site here:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bomford.net

Go to the Worcestershire Bomfords, then go to the annotated family tree. David Jeffrey Bomford appears on the Worcester Bomford page at:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070205211559/www.bomford.net/worcestershire/treeannotated.htm

This page is from 2007.

Go down and find David Jeffrey Bomford (#I0543) and run your cursor over the "b" following his name. You will see that there was a .jpg page at that time (2007) containing a birth certificate at THAT TIME. The .jpg page was not also archived by the Internet Archive.

Was the birth certificate .jpg in 2007 the same as the birth certificate .jpg that was pulled from the web two days ago? There is no indication in the Internet Archive that the Bomford website was ever updated after June 2007.

So were there shenanigans with the Bomford birth certificate? So far, it seems unlikely.

And as to your question about the Bomford document being uploaded by a forger just the other day, see this post: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2307402/posts?page=1943#1943

And of course, there is the interview on Australian radio with David Jeffrey Bomford himself in which he says essentially that that really was his actual birth certificate he put on his website.

I think everyone looking at this carefully would agree that the Kenyan birth certificate and the Bomford birth certificate cannot both be real, because the coincidence of the book (44B) and page number (5733) of the birth register places that outside the realm of reasonable possibility.

One way to verify the Bomford document is for any Australian freeper in Adelaide to pop into the registrar's office and ask very nicely if there really exists a book "44B" with a page "5733" in the birth records in the year 1961. That would not be giving out private information, and if asked nicely I'm sure a clerk could and would easily check. That would settle the question.

99 posted on 08/04/2009 2:03:35 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn

"Why did she show up in Tel Aviv, Israel when she was supposedly on her way to London?"

She was on her way to Russia to see her parents.

100 posted on 08/04/2009 2:05:22 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794