. . . . Check out # 79.
Thanks David.
bbl
Posted on 01/18/2012 7:11:00 PM PST by Obama Exposer
In that case, maybe somebody should forge another Obama BC, the information on which contradicts the official electronic version. An anonymous email could alert OT to the existence of the new BC and she could try to enter knowledge of its existence into the record. The defense would likely protest the new document as fraudulent. But how could they prove it without a physical examination?
. . . . Check out # 79.
Thanks David.
bbl
Another interesting point here is that this lawyer who represents Zero is just some local lawyer--his comcast address infers at least that he isn't a substantial legal entity with backup to support what he is doing. This represents a decline in the kind of horsepower Zero has historically devoted to fighting this kind of action.
I picked out the best part, the remainder is too depressing.
Enough to make one wish they were in Tasmania...
Another interesting point here is that this lawyer who represents Zero is just some local lawyer—his comcast address infers at least that he isn’t a substantial legal entity with backup to support what he is doing. This represents a decline in the kind of horsepower Zero has historically devoted to fighting this kind of action.
You’re right about that. Where’s Bob Bauer, husband of the Mao lover?
Thanks for the ping!
For what it’s worth, I don’t believe that the long-form birth certificate placed on the White House blog was created by the Hawaiian Dept. of Health. I do believe that whatever they created is in the hands of his personal lawyer, the one who went there to pick up two copies. I believe that one of them is the basis for what you see in the pdf but that pdf was not created by the Dept. of Health. The real thing was scanned and then modified to make the data on it match what he previously released on the short-form. For the same reason they wouldn’t vouch for the short-form, the Hawaiian Dept. of Health won’t vouch for the long-form. There’s no way that any real long-form birth certificate contains a stamp, on the FRONT, mind you, that says TXE instead of THE. That “error” was likely introduced to sidestep laws against forging a seal of certification. If you recall, nobody has ever seen or examined the underlying document that Obama’s lawyer picked up in Hawaii. If it was even present at the press conference, the spokeperson merely waved it at a distance, would not let the media examine it, and then removed it from the room before Obama even spoke. The special visit to the supposed long-form by Savannah Guthrie, notwithstanding. Her photos are no more evidence than an image on the Internet.
It is a perspective that I will keep in mind, and I consider it a reasonable possibility, but I don't consider it likely because of that "official seal" and because Hawaii isn't contradicting it. This could be explained in the manner you suggest, but it just doesn't seem likely to me. I find it improbable. Not impossible, just less likely in my mind.
I do agree with you about the two documents in possession of the Lawyer. I am certain those are real insofar as Hawaii will certify. For whatever Reason, the Lawyer certainly seems guarded about them. Hopefully the judge will force them into his perusal, and if they ARE replacement documents, hopefully the judge will announce so and demand the "original" document.
butterdezillion proved that the official (embossed) seal on Obama’s long-form birth certificate is not official. It’s the wrong size, for one thing. It’s barely visible on the scanned version on the WH blog.
The stamped certification is on the front, although other birth certificates are stamped on the back. Even a reporter at the press conference asked why the back of the birth certificate that the spokesperson was holding didn’t have a stamp.
The Hawaiian Dept. of Health has been asked and they will NOT verify OR condemn the online image. They will NOT say that they created it or say that what’s on it matches what’s in their records. They hide behind their privacy laws about not releasing any vital records information to people not allowed to receive it.
In this case, to say that something on the short-form or the long-form is NOT accurate would be (in their rationale) releasing information about a person’s vital records. It’s tortured reasoning, but they do it, among other reasons, BECAUSE they support Obama. It’s legalese that allows them to avoid having the full weight of the Obama WH come down on them, for one thing.
It may be that his original is sealed because of an adoption that he is hiding from the public. If it’s sealed, then there are more layers of law and policy that allow them to continue to obfuscate.
I do believe, as you do, that the certified copies Obama’s PERSONAL lawyer picked up are real. (Note that it was NOT the WH lawyer.)
Whatever those copies say is likely the TRUTH about the circumstances of his birth. He needed a waiver, perhaps because it was an adoption. But what we see on the released version is NOT what’s on the version the Dept. of Health gave his lawyer, I’d be willing to bet.
Say that it was an adoption and the Dept. of Health obviously knows that the parent(s) listed on the WH blog aren’t the ones on the version his lawyer received from them. Are they going to tell that to the public? They cannot do so. Which is why they evade the issue when asked.
They say nothing one way or the other. Not only don’t they condemn the birth certificates, they DON’T say they’re accurate, either.
IF those birth certificates are real and IF they match what he told the world, then there’s absolutely no logical reason to not present one of them to the court. Better yet, to ask the Hawaiian Dept. of Health to send a copy of the ORIGINAL, a copy of the page from the birth index (handwritten log book), and a copy of the microfilm directly to the court, along with a representative who will swear under penalty of perjury that all of it is authentic.
Perhaps you are right. Hawaii DOH might NOT say something if someone else fabricated it, though it's hard to believe they wouldn't make an issue out of the official seal unless it actually had their stamp of approval.
I think perhaps the judge can sort this all out. If not, Keeping Barack off of a ballot is a good default prize. Rest assured, if it had been a Republican trying to pull this off, we would not only have seen every private document in the State Archives leaked, we would have seen it front page news on every media outlet.
Certainly. The old double standard for teacher’s pet is alive and well.
I forgot to ask something that’s been bothering me: Why can’t Duncan Sunahara get one of those nifty waivers that the Hawaiians handed out for Obama, so he can see his sister’s original records? After all, the Hawaiian Dept. of Health made a big deal out of how Obama’s records haven’t been treated any differently from anyone else’s. Would they deny Sunahara, son of a WWII hero, a veteran himself, the same waiver that Obama got?
I had not heard that Obama had gotten a waiver. By "sister's records" I assume you are referring to her Hawaiian birth certificate? I do not know for a fact that she even has one, but it has been speculated that she does.
I think in the case of Duncan Sunahara, they are going to plead that "there ARE no records, and whoever is responsible for the screw up was a bureaucrat from the 1960s and is therefore no longer available to question, so why don't we just forget the whole thing? "
A Hawaiian judge will probably let them.
Sorry that I didn’t make myself more clear. The Dept. of Health came out and falsely claimed that they give out ONLY the short-form abstract.
Then someone proved that they received a copy of an original long-form as late as March of last year, iirc. So when Obama got a copy of his long-form (if you believe it’s real) in April, the health dept. claimed that he got a special waiver so they would bend their rules just for him.
Later, when Duncan Sunahara asked for a copy of his own sister’s long-form, they wouldn’t give him one. That’s why I said he should request the same waiver that Obama got. Instead, he has to sue them.
If they don’t have a long-form birth certificate for Virginia Sunahara, then upon what basis did they create the abstract they did send Duncan? There’s still the hand-written index that would have recorded her birth particulars. They had to have one before there were computer databases. She should be listed in the index with her birth certificate number. That’s how they would know where to look in the files for anybody’s birth certificate, so they could give them a certified copy.
I’m sure they’re not giving him a copy of Virginia’s original for the same reason they won’t give out anything about Obama. They’re caught if they do.
They probably will make up some sorry excuse such as we’ve heard before: There was a fire in the archives or bugs ate it.
Oh, I knew that was a lie. Their argument is “I can’t do that because *I* won’t let me.”
Anybody that believed that was a fool.
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.