Hollister v. Soetoro: Defendant Motion to Dismiss (curious footnotes)

Righgt Side of Life blog ^ | 1-29-2009 | Right Side Of Life blog

[Frantzie]

I just received a copy of the Motion to Dismiss in Philip Berg’s recent case, Hollister v. Soetoro. Aside from the usual defensive arguments, the following footnotes are very telling:

Regarding Berg’s claim of ineligibility:

1 President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper). Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” See “Certified,” Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct. 31, 2008. This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports. See The Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

[FreeManN]

"Ignorantia juris non excusat"

What Hoosiermama said!

[autumnraine]

Try hundreds of thousands. There are dozens of lawsuits around the country, including the Supreme Court. I think the last tally was over $800,000.

That’s what has bothered us. Instead of producing the vault form birth certificate that is obviously available since “factcheck.org” says so, why not hand it a judge?

[autumnraine]

My apologies, just woke up. I meant, the vault birth certificate since Hawaii says they have it,instead of the printout that factcheck took pictures of (which a Freeper already showed that the seal can be photoshopped on it).

By the way, go to factcheck and look at some of the pictures. Note the printing and how much darker it is than the background and how it’s not at the same angle as the paper. It looks photoshopped to my untrained eye.

[bronxboy]

He has already released it...now the birther troops will turn to natural born...which is a loser-start to finish. Send some money to the RNC..this would have potential to do some good.

[Nipfan]

Wow, it took you a while to find this thread but you finally scurried over to muddy the waters as far as possible.

What Obama “released” was a fake extract of a birth certificate made up of pixels, quite possibly from scratch.

[penelopesire]

Now Obama has installed TWICE as many lawyers in his White House Counsel’s office than President Bush according to an article this morning:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/01/30/ST2009013000277.html

“Many attorneys from both parties also marvel at the sheer number of lawyers Obama has appointed or nominated so far, particularly at the White House counsel’s office, which will have at least 22 attorneys working under counsel Greg Craig. That’s more than twice as large as the office was under Bush, with three deputy counsels, the special ethics counsel and 18 associate and deputy associate counsels.”

hmmmmm....looks like Obama is preparing for a big fight of some kind. I guess we all get to pay for it! (eye roll)

[FreeManN]

“So what is the penalty for presenting false information to the court. Maybe we should send them a few faxes to remind them.”

This is the only friendly reminder that I have for them.

[FreeManN]

“So what is the penalty for presenting false information to the court. Maybe we should send them a few faxes to remind them.”

This is the only friendly reminder that I have for them.

List of US Attorneys Offices for information regarding crimes committed during the 2008 Election:

http://defendourfreedoms.org/usattorneys.html

[Jim Noble]

This looks kind of desparate to me

Yup.

That's what Obama is. Desparate.

Right.

[FreeManN]

Don’t think bo’s 2 dozen or so lawyers will be much of a match for all of the private attorneys preparing suits against him plus all of the Attorneys on this list:

List of US Attorneys Offices for information regarding crimes committed during the 2008 Election:

http://defendourfreedoms.org/usattorneys.html

[IrishPennant]

Thanks for the Ping....science fiction continues to be more believable then this!!!

[bronxboy]

So, if the birth certificate is proven to be correct, and Obama was born in Hawaii... what then? Accept the 2008 election results or move on to natural born...just curious? All the money wasted on these lawsuits would be better spent electing conservatives-just saying... Oh, I never scurry. I walk like a man...John Wayne don’t you know.

[CaraM]

http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/

I didn’t read all 70 responses to this thread, so somebody may have covered it above, but this link to Dr. Polarik’s work clearly shows that Factcheck.org is a forgery.

Why is this fake BC still being mentioned in court as if it was usable?

[mlo]

"Hmm... his attorneys are regurgitating the phony COLB and passing it off as a BC. Claiming HI verfied it? Citing their factcheck.org fron group."

"This looks kind of desparate to me. Any legal beagles ideas? If any judges looked closely at the evidence they would know his sources he is using to defend himself are bogus or at best suspect."

It doesn't mean much. It's just drawing these items to the court's attention, should the court choose to consider them. That's why they are footnotes. The argument for dismissal rests upon other things.

BTW, the COLB is not phony and Hawaii did verify it.

[mlo]

"For $12 all of this could go away. Yet he must be spending thousands on lawyers to respond to all of this. Just doesn’t make sense."

Someone says this on every thread.

He did release it. That's what is in the footnote. Someone called it a forgery and all these people bought in to it, because it's what they want to believe.

[mlo]

"Ok... how can factcheck.org, which presumably only saw what is allegedly a computer-printed copy of the Certification of Live Birth, claim to have concluded that his Birth Certificate is genuine?"

Because the computer printed copy is genuine. That' is what Hawaii gives out when one requests their birth certificate.

[ladyjane]

BronxBoy, you finally showed up. You’re late.

And now you want us to send money to the RNC. LOL

[penelopesire]

I keep seeing this list posted, but don’t really understand it. It just looks like a list of US Attorneys.

Where are the list of attorneys preparing suits against Obama?

Can you explain this a little better for those not ‘in the know’?

[mlo]

"I didn’t read all 70 responses to this thread, so somebody may have covered it above, but this link to Dr. Polarik’s work clearly shows that Factcheck.org is a forgery."

No it doesn't. It's a sloppy amateurish attempt to get to the conclusion he wants. He never produces proof of forgery because he never proves that the observations he picks out, even if true, are proof of forgery. He just says they are. And his observational claims are not true. See below: =======================

One of the pillars of Polarik’s forgery accusation is an alleged absence of green pixels between the letters of the word “BIRTH”.  This instance appears at the end of the phrase “CITY, TOWN OR LOCATION OF BIRTH”.  There are several interesting things to note about this accusation.

It’s part of a header which would be constant.  If someone forged the birth certificate by using a real one and replacing the personal data, why erase the header just to put it back?

Why did Polarik pick this one word to build the forgery case, out of all the words on the birth certificate?

There are plenty of other words with plenty of green between the letters.  What about them?  Aren’t they forged too?

And, what proof is there that a shortage of green pixels between letters is a certain indicator of forgery?

But for now, let’s just focus on whether the observation of missing green pixels is true.  Because, if it isn’t true, none of those other questions matter very much.  Is there a green pixel shortage between these letters?

The green colored pixels come from the background pattern on the birth certificate stock.  It is a hatched pattern of green strokes on white (Or a very light green. Calling it white is good enough for our purposes.)  The strokes are alternately aligned vertically and horizontally, in pairs.

The black letters are printed on top of this pattern.  Whether a pixel between two letters is white or green depends upon the position of that pixel within the hatch pattern.

Note the relative position of the word “BIRTH” with respect to the background.

Simple visual examination reveals that the base of the word is over one horizontal green mark.  This mark is the top mark of a pair.  The left edge of the first letter, “B”, and the right edge of the last letter, “H”, are just touching a vertical green mark.  In each case the second mark of the pair is further out from the word.  Finally, the top of “BIRTH” just touches the bottom of a vertical pair of marks just above.

This means that upper two thirds or more of the word “BIRTH” are printed on white space, not on top of any green marks.  The only place you would normally expect to see green pixels between the letters is at the base of the word where it overlaps the horizontal green mark.  And we do see it there, just as expected.

There is no anomaly here.  It looks just as it should look.  All that’s happened is that Polarik has picked one of the words that was mostly printed on white, where he could attempt to make this argument.

Let’s look at some of the other ones he ignores.

If someone forged this certificate they definitely had to change the name to “BARACK”.  But there’s plenty of green between letters here.  Why?  Well, because the letters obscure both members of the pairs of horizontal marks it overlaps, and there are vertical pairs that overlap the word too.  It’s printed on plenty of green space, it isn’t printed on mostly white space.

And the word right above, “FATHER’S”.  Plenty of green there too.  Again, because it is printed on green, not mostly white space.

All Polarik has done is pick out a word that is mostly printed on white space, and tried to make people think something is wrong with it because the background is mostly…white.

Need more?

The allegedly improper “BIRTH” image can be recreated by simply superimposing the black letters along with the white “ringing” artifact over a part of the background without any printing. This should not be possible, according to Polarik, because if we don't erase the underlying image first we aren't removing any green pixels, and our replication should have more green between the letters.

First, using Photoshop use the selection tools to select the letters in the word “BIRTH” and then expand that selection around each letter.  This is to capture the white “ringing” around the letters.

That gives this image.  This is pasted onto a red background so you can see where it is transparent.

Now take that image and paste onto an unprinted area of the certificate.  There’s plenty of unused space.  Right under the source “BIRTH” will work fine.

Position the pasted in letters so that they line up with the green hash marks just the same as the original “BIRTH” does.  Left edge of “B” just touching the vertical mark, right edge of the “H” just touching the vertical mark, base of the word over the horizontal mark.  Aligned just like the original.  The original is on top, the copy on the bottom.

Now if Polarik’s is correct, there should be some extra green in between these letters.  Because to make this, we didn’t go erase any old lettering and replace it.  That’s what is supposed to account for the missing green.  Does that happen?  Is there more green in our newly printed “BIRTH” than in the original “BIRTH”?  Let’s bring up the color for a good look.

No, there is no missing green in the original (top) “BIRTH”.  Just like the bottom version, the white comes from being printed on a white part of the paper, and the pixelization from the “ringing” artifact.

We should emphasize that Polarik has never demonstrated that “missing green” is proof of forgery.  He just says so.  But that question needn’t concern us now because the observation of “missing green” is false in any case.

[Uncle Chip]

Because the computer printed copy is genuine.

Hey, Pinnochio, you're right on cue with those prefabricated talking points. How is the weather there in Chicago???