Certifigate: If It’s Not a Fraud, How Do We Really Know?
Update: Dr. Polarik has released his report on the COLB, and the PatriotSkyline blog has similarly picked up on the below story (for reference, here’s the older St. Petersburg Times article that substantiates the reference).
To coin a quote from MarchReport.com’s aptly-named page:
“From Watergate we learned what generations before us have known; our Constitution works. And during the Watergate years, it was interpreted again so as to reaffirm that no one – absolutely no one — is above the law.”
– Leon Jaworski, Watergate Special Prosecutor
Most Americans are only vaguely aware of the fact that the American Constitution has a presidential eligibility clause, namely Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. Yet, most of those same Americans, if questioned today, would likely not countenance the idea that this clause has never actually been legally enforced, because no such laws exist; what’s more, the major political parties only require a mere self-ascribing document wherein the candidate simply claims that they’re eligible with only their good will to back the paper up (see my Qualifications category and fellow blogger Justin Riggs’ YourFellowCitizen.com site for more details).
And here we are, today, roughly a year after top blogger Pamela Gellar of Atlas Shrugs first broke the story that the alleged certification of live birth is claimed to be a fraud. What is so interesting about this story — as I’ve covered here and here — is the fact that sites all over the Internet are changing their “facts” as to even specifying the hospital in which Mr. Obama is claimed to have been born as this issue has been highlighted recently by WorldNetDaily.com. In fact, while the domain whois information is still intact, FightTheSmears.com, a site that had been billing itself as a place to counter supposed attacks against this President, sends all page requests to parts unknown.
So, while comments on this blog and many other forums have been circling around the same “yes it is, no it isn’t” discussions concerning the actual content of the certification of live birth, let’s get to the bottom line of asking even more fundamental questions about the document:
How do we really know that it’s legitimate? Has the Hawaiian Department of Health already inadvertently confirmed that no such record of document procurement exists? Who actually requested the certification? When did they perform this procurement?
We first need to go back to the one eligibility lawsuit (Keyes v. Lingle) that, to date, included on Courthouse record two separate opinions — one by a forensics analyst and another by a statistical expert. Since these two individuals are the only ones that have thus far gone on the record expressing their views on the certification of live birth, they form the factual and legal basis upon which questions have arisen.
First, Ms. Lines…
executedsandralinesdeclaration_1
Next, Dr. Polarik:
Anonymous Digitable Expert Declaration Signed
To date, the biggest refutation hangs on the “Born in the U.S.A.” page at FactCheck.org. There are some key discrepencies to notice:
- While the HI DoH has confirmed that they “have personally seen and verified that the [HI] [DoH] has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record” (they didn’t say they’ve actually seen the original birth certificate), they have never publically and officially spoken about the more recent certification of live birth;
- Subsequently, the article spends most of its verbiage discussing the certification of live birth, despite the fact that no direct, official documentation backs up any assertion that the authorities in Hawaii have substantiated the certification (sometimes more is better: lots of verbiage certainly makes it look like the author(s) have their facts backed up by direct citations, but they don’t);
- While the article shows a picture of a date and signature stamp, consider the following:
- The date stamp shows June 6, 2007, though the article was originally written on August 21, 2008;
- There is no explicit frame of reference to show that the picture is, in fact, from the same certification;
- The only explanation for the discrepancy by the article is in the verbiage: “We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that’s when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and “all the records we could get our hands on” according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn’t release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama’s citizenship.”
Unfortunately, the FactCheck.org article never cites exactly who did the procuring of the certification of live birth, and, hence, producing a record of such a transaction. After all, would it not be far easier to establish credibility of the document by showing a receipt of the transaction having occrred (considering that the State doesn’t pull records without payment)? This would, at the very least, provide some basis to consider the potential genuineness of the document.
Therefore, I decided to correspond with the folks in Hawaii to see if such a transaction was public information and could be known to have occurred. I sent an email to vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov, asking the following on July 2, 2009:
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to you today to find out information regarding the transaction that occurred on or about June 6, 2007 to procure Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth. Through much of the Internet-based discussion on his alleged ineligibility for the office of the presidency, I was not able to locate any information on the official transaction that produced the COLB.
Is this information publicly available? If yes, what is the process by which I would need to go about obtaining this information? Is there a form that I would need to submit to retrieve this information?
I am only interested in the details of the transaction concerning whomever requested Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth.
Thank you ahead of time for any information that you can provide.
Sincerely,
-Phil
Concerned Citizen from the great State of Georgia
To which I received the following response later the same day:
This is not public information.
Aloha,
kd
Vital Statistics
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Hawai’i Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Yet, this isn’t the only communication that the HI DoH has allegedly had with concerned individuals. In fact, as TheObamaFile.com reports (search on “An Email To An Obot”), Dr. Polarik had communicated with Hawaiian officials on this very subject:
Just Yesterday, Robert Farley, a staff writer from the St. Petersberg Times, wrote an essay entitled, “Obama’s birth certificate: Final chapter. This time we mean it!” in which Farley regurgitates many of the usual Obot arguments in defense of the Obamamessiah’s bona fides and attacks those that question them. In response to his tiresome screed, Ron Polarik, emailed Farley the following:
Dear Mr. Farley:
I’m glad you find document fraud to be so funny, because the American people who were deceived by these phony images are not at all amused. They certainly are not happy about Politifact promulgating a forgery. Exactly which part of Obama’s spending a million dollars of campaign contributions to keep his real birth certificate hidden, is “laughable?”
Obama has gone the entire year without ever showing a real, paper birth certificate to anyone in government, anyone in authority, even anyone not shilling for him. What has been shown, however, is a totally fabricated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) image.
Now, what is a really sick joke is claiming that this heavily-doctored “scan image” that was posted on Obama’s (now defunct) website, Daily Kos Website, Politifact’s website, and Factcheck’s website, was made from the same object shown in Factcheck’s photos: the ones with the exaggerated Seal impressions and second fold lines. Even a five year-old can see that there’s no way in Hades that a high-resolution “scan image,” with no Seal or second fold line showing, could ever have been made from the document object shown in the Factcheck photos.
Do you really think the American public is as mindless as the people perpetrating this fraud?
I have to give you props, though. I never thought that Politifact could be more wrong than the last time they tried to pass off this forgery as the real deal. It was back in June of last year. Amy Hollyfield was the reporter at the time, and in talking with Janice Okubo, she created a conundrum.
We all know Janice Okubo, don’t we? She’s that helpful Public Relations Officer (Communications Officer) at Hawaii’s DOH, who’s not exactly Hawaii’s answer to Google when it comes to all things COLB.
When asked about Obama’s birth certificate, Okubo told Hollyfield that “a copy of the birth certificate was requested in June 2008,” but she wouldn’t specify by whom.
Even Amy pondered the implications of that statement as she was reviewing the many criticisms of the bogus “scan image”:
Isn’t the date stamp bleeding through the back of the document “June 6, 2007?” (Odd since it was supposedly released in June 2008.)
“Odd, indeed!” How can a 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB), date-stamped “June 6, 2007″ have been requested in June 2008?
The answer, though, is quite simple, really: Hawaii never produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth for Obama with a date-stamp of June 6, 2008.
Last year, I spoke with the Hawaii State Registrar, himself, Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, who provided me with the following bit of information, when I asked him if Janice Okubo had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 COLB, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama’s birth information on it.
He said, “Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it.”
That’s right, Mr. Farley. Obama’s 2007 COLB is a nonexistent document, and what’s shown in the “scan image” alleged to be real a real copy of Obama’s birth certificate is nothing but that same, original fabricated forgery that first appeared on June 12th of last year.
What does that “scan image” prove?
Document fraud. Internet fraud. Voter fraud. A forged Certification of Live Birth, designed and proffered with one purpose in mind: to deceive the American public into believing that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is qualified to be President.
A secondary purpose of this document fraud was to prevent citizens and lawmakers from ever seeing his real, original “vault birth certificate, so, it comes down to this:
Anyone who says that Hawaii issued a 2007 COLB for Obama, and that a true copy of it is posted online, is either (a) misinformed, (b) misleading others, or (c) lying through their teeth.
Regarding Politifact’s ridiculous “Truth-o-Meter,” did Press Secretary Robert Gibbs lie when he said that the Obama Administration posted a copy of his birth certificate online?
Did Clinton have sex with Monica Lewinsky?
Of course Gibbs lied. Obama’s Campaign lied. Factcheck lied. The Daily Kos lied. Snopes lied. Politifact lied. The Star Bulletin lied. The Honolulu Advertiser lied. All the media who are in-the-tank with Obama lied. All of his liberal Leftist supporters lied.
But, the facts don’t lie. There is no 2007 COLB for Obama, and Hawaii State Registrar, Dr. Alvin T. Onaka said so.
Last year, in addition to getting the word from Onaka, I conducted five months of empirical research that proved, conclusively and irrefutably, that the “scan image” alleged to be Obama’s COLB is a fabricated image, and no amount of bitching by the opposition is going to change that fact.
I can’t really blame them for thinking they see a real COLB instead of a phony one. After all, there are a lot of people who claim to see religious characters in Cheetos, Corn Flakes, or fried eggs. However, it’s all in their heads.
All of the statements claiming that the “scan image” posted online looks “identical” to an actual 2007 COLB, is pure nonsense. None of the real scan images of a real 2007 COLB, as well as the photos taken of a real 2007 COLB, look anything like what Politifact and Factcheck claim.
The Seal shown in Factcheck’s photos looks nothing like the real Seal shown in real 2007 COLBs.
If you go to my website, The Greater Evil, and read my research, you’ll find at least twenty reasons why the image posted online is totally bogus.
I’ve got another twenty more that show how this one, bogus scan image has engendered the biggest cover-up in political history. All of the efforts made by Factcheck, Politifact, Snopes, and other, assorted Obama flunkies, have been either to promulgate the forgery as a real document or to cover up the fact that document fraud has taken place.
It goes like this: the Obama Campaign claims that they posted a genuine copy of Obama’s real, original birth certificate and then points to Factcheck when anyone asks for proof. Factcheck then refers them to their August 21 article, “Born in the USA,” and points the finger back at the Obama Campaign as the source of the real, original birth certificate. And, so it goes. What a nice, neat little circle of deceit going on here.
One hand washes the other.
In case you forgot or never knew, Factcheck is funded by the Annenberg Foundation — the same foundation that gave a $30 million grant to William “The Unrepentant Pentagon Bomber” Ayers, to start the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and then hired an inexperienced community organizer in one Barack Obama, to be the Chairman of the Board working alongside him.
Besides lying about Obama’s birth certificate and doing all it can to cover up the fraud, it was Factcheck who claimed that Obama never interacted with William Ayers as an adult — let alone directly worked with him on the Annenberg Challenge. The lies that Factcheck has told run long and deep.
Nice sister site you got there, Robert. Think about that the next time you want to write a screed about Obama’s bogus birth certificate.
Regards,
Dr. Ron Polarik [emphases original]
Making things more interesting, apparently the White House will not confirm any communication with any Hawaiian hospital regarding the President’s birth:
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today refused to confirm that a letter posted by the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu – purportedly from President Obama claiming the facility as his birthplace – is, in fact, real.
The issue arose today when Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House, asked Gibbs about the letter, which the hospital also used in a magazine fundraising article.
However, when WND reported on the posted images and questioned their authenticity, the hospital concealed the online image, and then refused to confirm the letter even exists.
Gibbs’ answer came in response to Kinsolving’s question:
While you and the president were overseas on July the 7th, there was on the Internet a copy of a letter on White House letterhead dated January the 24th, 2009, with the signature “Barack Obama,” which stated, “The place of my birth was Honolulu’s Kapi’olani Medical Center.” And my question is, can you verify this letter? Or if not, would you tell us which Hawaiian hospital he was born in, since Kapi’olani, which used to publicize this, now refuses to confirm?
Gibbs said, without responding directly to the question about the veracity of the letter, “Goodness gracious. I’m going to be, like, in year four describing where it is the president was born. I don’t have the letter at my fingertips, obviously, and I don’t know the name of the exact hospital.”
When Kinsolving asked when Gibbs could check, he responded.
“I will seek to interview whoever brought the president into this world. But can we just – I want to do this once and for all, Lester. Let’s just do this once and for all. You can go on this – I hope you’ll take the time not just to Google ‘President, January 24, Hawaii hospital, birth’ and come up with this letter, but go on the Internet and get the birth certificate, Lester, and put…”
When Kinsolving pointed at that the image posted on various website’s was not been a birth certificate or a certificate of live birth, but a different “Certification of Live Birth” document, Gibbs said, “I know. Just a document from the state of Hawaii denoting the fact that the president was indeed born in the state of Hawaii.”
But under Hawaiian law at the time of the president’s birth, such documents were available for babies not even born in Hawaii.
Obama states in the purported letter that he was born at Kapi’olani. The letter was posted by the medical center for nearly six months on its website before being electronically hidden once WND publicized it.
Now the hospital refuses to confirm that a real document even exists. But a similar – although not identical – image purporting also to be a letter from Obama claiming Kapi’olani as his birth place appeared in the hospital’s Inspire Magazine…
Then Gibbs, amidst a repeating chorus of guffaws and giggles from the White House press corps, started lecturing the WND correspondent, who is among a handful of the most senior correspondents on the White House assignment, about journalism.
“You know, Lester, I – I want to stay on this for a second, Lester, I want to stay on this for a second, because you’re a smart man, right?” said Gibbs.
“Hypothetical,” said an unidentified reporter.
“All right, all right, settle down in here. Only I get to make jokes like that,” said Gibbs.
“Lester, let’s finish this one. Do all of your listeners and the listeners throughout this country the service to which any journalist owes those listeners, and that is the pursuit of the noble truth. And the noble truth is that the president was born in Hawaii, a state of the United States of America. And all of this incredible back-and-forth – I get e-mails today from people who inexplicably can figure out very easily the White House e-mail address, and want proof of where the president was born,” Gibbs said.
“Lester, the next time you ask me a question I’m going to ask you what reporting you’ve done to demonstrate to your listeners the truth, the certificate, the state, so that they can look to you for that momentous search for the truth, and you can wipe away all the dark clouds and provide them with the knowing clarity that comes with that certainty,” Gibbs said.
Unfortunately, even witnesses to any birth of Mr. Obama in Hawaii cannot be verified, nor can Mr. Obama’s penmanship of the book, Audacity of Hope. Being unable to confirm or deny the ultimate genuineness of the certification of live birth leaves us with precious little direct, verifiable evidence as to the President’s background information — though we are aware there’s plenty to see (see link below).
Any law-abiding citizen certainly respects the importance of having privacy laws and making sure that there are deterents to individuals who wish to pry into another’s private information for malicious intent. However, we are talking about the President, someone who is — and has been — a very public figure and, constitutionally speaking, is not protected from being asked to provide his bona fides.
In fact, as I’ve said from the beginning of my own involvement in this saga, it is the responsibility of we, the People, to ultimately uphold the Constitution. It’s ultimately our fault for not having been vigilant enough to have asked the right questions much earlier in Mr. Obama’s candidacy for the presidency. Now, it’s our obligation, knowing the law as it now stands, to take a stand, and demand to know who our leaders are.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
1 HistorianDude was initially responding to a contribution by me that concerned Obama’s COLB and its rebuttal as prima facie evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
2 HistorianDude asserts that he was “talking about the civil standard for proof” but his observation that “Lacking any evidence contradicting the COLB, its mere existence meets that standard…” [emphasis applied] is incoherent and meaningless unless HistorianDude is referring to the standard proposed in the preceding sentence, “the civil standard of the preponderance of the evidence“, and that is the standard he is applying to Obama’s COLB.
3 Unfortunately for HistorianDude the civil standard of “the preponderance of the evidence” does not and never has applied to rebuttable presumptions under the Federal Rules of Evidence. There is no other standard except FRE Rule 301 as below. A Hawaii COLB itself claims to be prima facie evidence or a rebuttable presumption: therefore in the context of my original contribution “rebuttable presumption” is a synonym for “COLB“.
4 “The civil standard [for rebutting presumptions] is ‘the preponderance of evidence’” is semantically equivalent to “The civil standard [for rebutting COLBs] is ‘the preponderance of evidence’“.
5 Any umbrage taken by HistorianDude to “The civil standard [for rebutting presumptions] is ‘the preponderance of evidence’” is only rationally based if this is not semantically equivalent to “The civil standard [for rebutting COLBs] is ‘the preponderance of evidence’“; if COLBs were not the subject of my original contribution; and if HistorianDude was not challenging the standard by which to rebut them with his own imagined standard for rebutting COLBs (“the preponderance of evidence“). Readers can decide for themselves what HistorianDude was talking about.
6 For the record: the standard for rebutting prima facie evidence, or presumptions, or COLBs is NOT “the preponderance of evidence” – unless HistorianDude can demonstrate the contrary, citing legal authorities. As HistorianDude has declined my prior invitation below to come up with some counter-arguments, this is not expected and will speak for itself.
7 HistorianDude has ventured elsewhere that he is perfect in his predictions: I suggest this may be the real source of his problem.
Who Are You kidding:
Wonderful.
Compare that now with the fake quote you previously posted;
“The civil standard [for rebutting presumptions] is ‘the preponderance of evidence’
Your insertion of the comment in brackets was an egregious and deliberate misrepresentation of what I actually said. I was (as the full post shows) talking about the civil standard for proof, not “for rebutting presumptions.”
You have proven that you faked the previous quote by now delivering the actual very different real quote. Thanks for exposing yourself so completely.
HistorianDude has made the claim that a quote attributed to him has been faked. This claim is completely untrue.
This is the original of the quote that HistorianDude claims is faked:
HistorianDude says: June 10, 2009 at 12:55 pm: The civil standard is “the preponderance of evidence.” Lacking any evidence contradicting the COLB, its mere existence meets that standard and no “bypass” is legally warranted.”
HistorianDude’s quote can be found at http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6240&cpage=1#comment-15319
HistorianDude was responding to a contribution by me concerning the fact that Obama’s COLB (if it exists) cannot presume to be prima facie evidence. We can read for ourselves that HistorianDude replied to my contribution that “Lacking any evidence contradicting the COLB, its mere existence meets that standard”, the standard which HistorianDude claims is “the preponderance of evidence.”
HistorianDude’s other deceptive (or just plain ignorant) claims are that Who Are You Kidding is a) proposing a “weird legal theory”, and that b) ” ‘presumption’ has nothing to do with it. And neither does Rule 301″.
1 The Federal Rules of Evidence are not a “weird legal theory” and nothing has been being proposed except their application to the facts and evidence in this case. To be taken at his own pathologically inflated self-estimation HistorianDude will have to show that something other than the Federal Rules of Evidence is being applied.
2 Anyone who has ever looked at the online images of Obama’s purported COLB has seen that in says at its foot: “prima facie evidence”. Prima facie evidence is evidence about a fact which is only technically or artificially presumed to be true, until challenged and rebutted in court. The basis for challenging a legal or artificial presumption in court, specifically Obama’s prima facie COLB (if it exists), is Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The standard applied by Rule 301 to rebut a prima facie presumption is NOT the “the preponderance of evidence”, as HistorianDude deceptively (or ignorantly) asks us to believe, but the Thayer-Wignore standard: the introduction of ANY evidence which leads reasonable persons to draw alternative logical conclusions about the fact presumed.
3 “I spoke of the civil standard for proof. And it is exactly as I described; the preponderance of evidence. The COLB alone meets that legal standard of proof. No presumptions necessary.” HistorianDude
It’s quite clear judging from HistorianDude’s own incoherent statements, and not by his own pathologically inflated opinion of himself, that HistorianDude knows nothing about what rebuts a prima facie presumption in court and that HistorianDude is faking the extent of his knowledge in order to mislead readers and further his propaganda effort – or he’s just plain ignorant. HistorianDude hasn’t and will be unable to cite a single judicial or academic authority to support his deception (or ignorance) because there is none. The following authority is an example of what HistorianDude’s ebullient deceit or ignorance is trying to suppress:
McCann v Newman Trust United States Court Of Appeals, Third Circuit 2006:-
“Under Fed. R. Evid. 301, a presumption in a civil case imposes the burden of production on the party against whom it is directed, but does not shift the burden of persuasion. We have interpreted Rule 301 to express the Thayer-Wigmore “bursting bubble” theory of presumptions… Under this theory, ‘the introduction of evidence to rebut a presumption destroys that presumption, leaving only that evidence and its inferences to be judged against the competing evidence and its inferences to determine the ultimate question at issue.’ In other words, the presumption shifts the burden of producing sufficient evidence to rebut the presumed fact. Once that burden is met, the presumption “disappears from the case.” …This view of Rule 301 is widely accepted. See, e.g., In re Yoder Co., 758 F.2d 1114, 1119 (6th Cir. 1985) (stating most commentators conclude that under Rule 301, ‘a presumption vanishes entirely once rebutted, and the question must be decided as any ordinary question of fact’…”
4 The evidence that would rebut Obama’s COLB as prima facie is: 1 The original TYPE of record which registered Obama Jr’s birth is unknown. 2 The IDENTITY of whoever registered Obama Jr’s birth is unknown. 3 The precise LOCATION of Obama Jr’s birth is unknown. 4 The near certainty that neither Ann Dunham Obama, nor her husband, nor her parent’s ever lived at the “Mother’s Address” (6085 Kalanianaole Highway) entered into Obama Jr’s original birth record. 5 The concealment by members of the Dunham family from other family, friends, authors, and interviewers over decades that Ann Dunham Obama was resident in the State of Washington within three weeks of the registration of Obama Jr’s birth (FRE Rules 803 and 804: hearsay exception). 6 The fact that Ann Dunham Obama, being domiciled in the State of Washington from August 1961, lied under oath about satisfying the legal two years domicile required to divorce in Hawaii; felonious perjury is established by her own statements of intent and numerous federal rulings: eg “The place where a person lives is taken to be his domicile until facts adduced establish the contrary” US Supreme Court, and “…once a party’s domicile is challenged, the party [challenging] must prove domicile by a preponderance of the evidence…” US 1st Cir. Court Appeals; and consequently any document with which Ann Dunham Obama is associated (eg a birth certificate) is maximally suspect and cannot be admitted prima facie.
Unless HistorianDude can manipulate these facts in such a way that it is logically IMPOSSIBLE to draw any other conclusion except that Obama Jr was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 then, under Rule 301, the prima facie presumption of Obama’s COLB (if it exists) disappears in court like a bursting bubble. After which Obama’s original 1961 birth record must be produced.
5 Although repeatedly asked, HistorianDude has declined to comment upon the fact that Obama’s COLB, if it exists and is ever produced in court, also fails as prima facie evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence because it is NOT a true duplicate “by the same impression…matrix…or accurately reproduces the original” (FRE 1001-1003), does NOT satisfy the Completeness Rule (FRE 106), and would NOT count as Best Evidence (FRE 1002), and as a result of failing any one of these Rules Obama’s original 1961 birth record would have to be produced for the court. Given no comment has been forthcoming we can presume that HistorianDude has been unable to muster a contrary argument or authority.
MGB:
Brave prediction MGB. Braver still when you realize that every single prediction I have made regarding the legal process of the Birther lawsuits has been correct, while the Birther predictions have not.
Given that they have already issued a public statement that they have personally seen and verified his original birth certificate, and further given the fact that Okubo (in her role as spokesperson for the DoH) has directly commented on the onl-line COLB when it was shared with her, this shouldn’t be too hard.
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC00003.html
That link was from me. I hit the enter key too soon. Sorry.
Anyway, this is the law that Historian Dude expects us to believe would apply to Okubo et al. Meaning that they are “accessories after the fact” if they don’t proactively come out and declare that the online COLB is fraudulent.
I doubt seriously whether this provision would or could apply to them. First of all, one would have to prove that they saw his original birth certificate and that they KNOW that what’s on the FactCheck COLB is false.
Text of the section:
“Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has
been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the
offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or
punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an
accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half
the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571)
fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the
punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is
punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be
imprisoned not more than 15 years.”
It would take a lawyer to explain the complexity of trying to apply this to employees of the Hawaiian DOH. There are competing laws that require them to keep their mouths shut. They CANNOT look at his original birth certificate, so not only won’t they tell us what’s on it, they can’t; and they’re not about to stick their necks out to tell us that the FactCheck COLB is bogus or real. This applies to criminal law, I believe. But then I’m not a lawyer. Maybe a reader who is a lawyer can elucidate.
Nice try, Historian Dude. But I don’t think that argument will fly.
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC00003.html
C. n. natus:
And?
And?
That follows from nothing that preceded it. Please, try again.
Wrong. An NBC need only be born on American soil. The citizenship of the parents is irrelevant.
Civis naturaliter natus says:
July 17, 2009 at 9:35 am
Another tid bit from Cara C, over at Citizen Wells’ Blog, regarding the REAL BC information:
—————
The New York Observer reported that in 2007, Obama apparently told an astrologer that he was born at 1:06 PM:
“The only existing report of the time, which apparently originated from a shout-out from Mr. Obama over a noisy crowd to astrologer Frances McEvoy during a New Hampshire pass-through earlier this year, places him at 1:06 p.m.”
See:
http://www.observer.com/2007/astrologers-agree-obama-faces-machiavellian-enemy.
The time of birth shown on the Certification of Live Birth posted on Obama’s site is 7:24 PM.
Frances McEvoy is not available for follow-up questions. She died in 2007 at age 78 of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
————
“So we know from Obama’s own mouth, when he lets his guard down, that his birth story is different from what the COLB says: he was born in January 1961, at 1:06 PM; not August at 7:24 PM.”
“What else is a lie on his alleged COLB?”
___________________________________________.
So CNN, it is OK for you to post information that can’t be verified? There is no corroboration for this story whatsoever. Yet you post it like it is some sort of additional proof.
That is not a surprise. Since all of the so called birther evidence is stuff that can’t be verified or has been discredited. I am surprised that you have not forwarded this to Orly yet. I am sure she can add this to one of her amended filings. Or that disbarred lawyer Charles Lincoln can.
Civis naturaliter natus says:
July 17, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Black Lion,
In a subsequent interview the woman disclaimed the story.
It turns out that the doctor had retired in 1958, so he could not have delivered the baby.
Most Obots stopped quoting this story for that reason, more than 3 months ago…
You need to read more…
However the comment by the Doctor is strange, I’ll grant that: “Thats something you can write home about!”
As for the Doctor knowing Stanley Ann, he did not: he just read about it in the newspaper, according to the woman…in the subsequent interview…if I remember correctly…
CNN, if you say so then it is so. I mean reposting discredited information that has been proven to be incorrect? Kind of like US citizens were not allowed to travel to Pakistan in 1981 because of some so called “travel ban”? Proven to be incorrect. How about the one that if Obama had become a citizen of Indonesia, then he would have lost his US citizenship? Not true, SCOTUS Perkins v. Elg. Or that the US Constitution states that a native born citizen is that of someone that is born of 2 citizen parents. Not true. The US Constitution only recognizes 2 types of citizens, those naturalized (no born on US soil) and native born or jus soli (born in the US). That’s it. No other definition was provided.
So we both agree, reposting discredited information is wrong. I am glad we can agree on something.
Greg Goss,
Unfortunately, I do not know if he is ineligible or not, as I have seen no conclusive proof one way or the other to officially substantiate this claim. Incidentally, this has been my position with this web site all along.
However, while it is true that Congress certified the Electoral College votes that made Mr. Obama President, if it is found that Mr. Obama as President is ineligible to hold the office, then there obviously would be a lot of questions as to how everyone got into this situation to begin with (and that would simply be the beginning of the epic failure to vet that would necessarily ensue).
-Phil
To clarify my comment to C. n. natus, given his tendency to misread clear statements, let alone ambiguous ones:
When I wrote “Asking him to do something he cannot do is ‘more practical?’”… by “cannot do” I was referring to his responsibility to the office of the Presidency to preserve the foundational legal concept of standing. I was not (as I expect you to pretend) implying that it was impossible for any reason.
The issue is not actually that he “cannot” do it, but that he should not do it.
Phil, First of all as you know I admire your patience and perseverance. I have found this site to be central in this endeavor to find the truth. I would only have one suggestion, please stop referring to Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama as “President” or “The President”. In light of all we know he is not. He can not be impeached, only removed because he is an impostor.
Thank you for all you have done, and will do.
Who Are You Kidding:
So much nonsense, so little time.
Sadly for your weird legal theory here, “presumption” has nothing to do with it. And neither does Rule 301. I said nothing about the civil standard “for rebutting presumptions.” I am at least grateful you had the good grace to use brackets when you faked the above supposed quotation of me.
I spoke of the civil standard for proof. And it is exactly as I described; the preponderance of evidence.
The COLB alone meets that legal standard of proof.
No presumptions necessary.
C. n. natus
Asking him to do something he cannot do is “more practical?” Perhaps you should look up the word “practical.”
Oh…. the money has nothing to do with it. Exposing the hypocrisy, irrationality, bigotry and general wackiness of the Birther movement is its own reward.
You have me confused with someone else. I was an artilleryman in the Army.
And I long ago lost any ability to be concerned when traitors accuse me of being unpatriotic.
MGB:
18 USC Sec. 3
Poppet:
18 USC Sec. 3
It does not matter if there would be harm or not. It is still a violation of HIPAA law.
Except for a violation of HIPAA law.
Yes, they would.
In fact, if it is false, and they know it is false, and they do not say so, they are accessories after the fact to fraud.
Yes, they would.
As we see from your options, all four are illegal. The only legal option is the one you seem to have left out.
It is real, and they say nothing.
Pete:
Campaigns absolutely can request his COLB. It goes like this: A campaign staffer fills out a request form. Obama signs it. Easy as pie.
No. It is common sense.
You are just making stuff up, now. Nothing in that account is true. The State of Hawaii has already told both Phil and “Dr. Polarik” that it is not public record what transactions do or do not exist. So you are simply fabricating this set of claims out of thin air.
And I find it bothersome that right after you whine about my not providing a reference, you then go on to not provide a reference. Do you even read what you type?
So okay, you want the reference? Here:
“The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that’s when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and ‘all the records we could get our hands on’ according to spokesperson Shauna Daly.”
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
You want me to “Reference a SINGLE Hawaiian DoH official that confirms they have reviewed the Internet COLB and verified it as authentic?” Okay:
“When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.
‘It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,’ spokesman Janice Okubo told us.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
You then ask, “Lets open it up a little, find a single document expert that will verify Obama internet COLB as Authentic.” Okay, but you’ll have to ask Joe Farah what their actual names were:
“A separate WND investigation into Obama’s certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. “
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
And finally, I will again make the point you keep missing.
The COLB on-line has the seal, certification and statement of the Hawaii DoH on it. They know about it. If it were fake, they would have the legal obligation to say so, else they are knowingly aiding and abetting fraud.
They have not said it is fake. Therefore it must be authentic.
HD,
It is interesting to note, that the article you just quoted, says nothing about when the alleged statements where made by Okubo.
Also, she does not address the fact that a child who is claimed to have been born at home, needs to present evidence that he was so born.
So it seems that anyone can bring a baby to a Hospital in HI and get a BC saying that you were born there, claim it was born in a hotel room when no one else was there and poof: you have a HI BC…
One problem with that theory, a NBC must have 2 citizen parents, and the alleged COLB claims a Kenyan citizen as Father…
Oopss, straining gnats and swallowing camels once again…
Nice “history” you must be rewriting…
Black Lion,
In a subsequent interview the woman disclaimed the story.
It turns out that the doctor had retired in 1958, so he could not have delivered the baby.
Most Obots stopped quoting this story for that reason, more than 3 months ago…
You need to read more…
However the comment by the Doctor is strange, I’ll grant that: “Thats something you can write home about!”
As for the Doctor knowing Stanley Ann, he did not: he just read about it in the newspaper, according to the woman…in the subsequent interview…if I remember correctly…
The Hawaii DoH speaks again:
Ephasis added.
We keep seeing that there is no person that has claimed that they witnessed Obama’s birth or that knew him as a child…However there was an article written back in January that seems to disprove that statement somewhat. See the following excerpt from the article…
http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html
“I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone,” said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98. Here’s the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: “‘So, tell me something interesting that happened this week,’” she recalls.
His response: “Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that’s something to write home about.”
The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama.
“I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it,” said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the “Stanley” connection.
She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby’s father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby’s name.
“I remember Dr. West saying ‘Barack Hussein Obama, now that’s a musical name,’” said Nelson, who grew up in Kenmore and went to Hawaii in 1959 to be in Jo-Anne’s wedding party. When Nelson was offered a job as a newspaper reporter and photographer at her friend’s wedding reception, it led to her living in Hawaii for 47 years. She returned to Kenmore in 2006.
Now Ms. Nelson not only remembers the President’s birth, but she remembers teaching him in school when he returned from Indonesia. She also cites specific events that are easily verifiable. However we all know for some that will not be enough. Orly has even said that the BC is not the entire issue. She also pulls out the 2 parents have to be citizens point to try and disqualify President Obama.
However this article is more to refute the common birther theme that there is no one that remembers President Obama’s birth or youth in Honolulu.
Another tid bit from Cara C, over at Citizen Wells’ Blog, regarding the REAL BC information:
—————
The New York Observer reported that in 2007, Obama apparently told an astrologer that he was born at 1:06 PM:
“The only existing report of the time, which apparently originated from a shout-out from Mr. Obama over a noisy crowd to astrologer Frances McEvoy during a New Hampshire pass-through earlier this year, places him at 1:06 p.m.”
See:
http://www.observer.com/2007/astrologers-agree-obama-faces-machiavellian-enemy.
The time of birth shown on the Certification of Live Birth posted on Obama’s site is 7:24 PM.
Frances McEvoy is not available for follow-up questions. She died in 2007 at age 78 of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
————
So we know from Obama’s own mouth, when he lets his guard down, that his birth story is different from what the COLB says: he was born in January 1961, at 1:06 PM; not August at 7:24 PM.
What else is a lie on his alleged COLB?
“Historiandude: The statement “no one requested his COLB in 2007″ is just another fake Birther factoid, a complete fabrication. It was stamped June 2007 because that is the date it was issued in response to a request from the Obama campaign for a copy of his birth certificate.”
Obama campaign CAN’T request his COLB. Only Obama can request it, or a legal entity. Therefore, this is an outright misrepresentation. Second, if OBAMA HAD requested his COLB in 2007, there WOULD BE A TRANSACTION record. There is a Transaction record for June of 2008, and NO TRANSACTION or ISSUED COLB for June of 2007.
I found it bothersome that you have made a claim that the Obama campaign requested his COLB in June 2007, Yet provide no reference to that effect. In fact, it is just the opposite, the only internet reference from the DoH says that NO 2007 COLB was ever requested.
“Historiandude: Were it not authentic, saying so would have violated no privacy laws and in fact been their responsibility to preserve the “full faith and credit” of the State of Hawaii. Everybody in Hawaii from Janice Okubo and Drs. Fukino and Onaka… up to the level of the Republican governor Linda Lingle have acknowledged the authenticity of the COLB by not calling it a fake.”
Another outright misleading statement. The State of Hawaii gave a carefully worded statement, and NEVER confirmed the online COLB as accurate or authentic. News reporters and people like you ASSUMED (do I need to explain what that means)that they had said the internet COLB was verified. Reference a SINGLE Hawaiian DoH official that confirms they have reviewed the Internet COLB and verified it as authentic. Lets open it up a little, find a single document expert that will verify Obama internet COLB as Authentic.
I will remain on topic to clearly and quote your from the past on prior blogs “I seek the truth” and “The COLB is Prima Fasia evidence”. The COLB isn’t Prima Fasia evidence if the transaction that produced it doesn’t exist, period. The truth is obviously something you are having trouble with, see above.
Pete
Hey AKA Obama! The dominos are starting to fall!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104219
FOLKS, Obama has done himself in.
HE HAS ADMITTED PUBLICALLY THAT HE WAS NOT BORN IN AUGUST OF 1961:
Here is the EXACT QUOTE of Zero:
“To move forward, we cannot let ourselves be prisoners of past disagreements. I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old. Too often, an opportunity to build a fresh partnership of the Americas has been undermined by stale debates. We’ve all heard these arguments before.””
Source: http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/04/20/brilliant-obama-i-was-three-months-old-during-bay-of-pigs/
The context of Zero’s remarsk was to the speech of Ortega, which spoke of the Bay of Pigs incident..
Other LInks with cite the same quote:
http://bellalu0.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/obama-applauds-after-ortegas-blistering-diatribe-against-the-usa/
———————
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/17/obama-chavez-shake-hands-summit-americas/
“Yet soon after, Ortega, who was ousted in 1990 elections that ended Nicaragua’s civil war but who was returned to power by voters in 2006, delivered a blistering 50-minute speech that denounced capitalism and U.S. imperialism as the root of much hemispheric mischief. The address even recalled the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, though Ortega said the new U.S. president could not be held to account for that.
“I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old,” Obama said, to laughter and applause from the other leaders.”
————
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-04-18-obama-summit-of-the-americas_N.htm
“Ortega stepped up and introduced himself to Obama, U.S. officials said. But a short time later, Ortega delivered a blistering 50-minute speech that denounced capitalism and U.S. imperialism as the root of much hemispheric mischief. The address even recalled the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, though Ortega said the new U.S. president could not be held to account for that.
“I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old,” Obama said, to laughter and applause from the other leaders.”
THE BAY OF PIGS INCIDENT OCCURED IN
APRIL 1961
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/baypigs/pigs.htm
This means Obama admits to being born in
JANARY OF 1961
And this, proves the COLB posted online is a forgery…
———–
Also, there is a probable argument that Dunham is not Zero’s biological mother, which is worth considering…
http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/the-adoption-of-obama/
Historian Dude said, “If the COLB is fake, and they do not say so even without Obama’s permission, they would be violating the law.”
Humor us. Please cite the exact law that they would be breaking if the COLB is fake and they don’t say so.
HistorianDude: you said,
If the COLB is authentic, and they say so without Obama’s permission, they would be violating the law.
If the COLB is fake, and they do not say so even without Obama’s permission, they would be violating the law.
What “Law” might that be?
There would be no harm to confirm it, especially, when Robert Gibb’s said the “posted” colb was intended to the satisfy the Public’s concern.
If the posted colb is “real”, and they confirm it is “real” there
is no harm done.
If the posted colb is “false”, and they say it is “real” then
they would be breaking the Law.
If the posted colb is “false”, and they say it is false there is
no harm.
If the posted cold is “real”, and they say it is false then they
would be breaking the Law.
There are Law’s that prohibit “posting” false and
misleading material and document’s to defraud……
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000494—-000-.html
Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any bond, bid, proposal, contract, guarantee, security, official bond, public record, affidavit, or other writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States; or
Whoever utters or publishes as true or possesses with intent to utter or publish as true, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited; or
Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or to any officer of the United States, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Then there is:
Seal’s
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000506—-000-.html
letter’s patent President
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000497—-000-.html
It is believed that Hawaii DOH has “sealed” record’s which is
usually done in the case of an adoption or name change. That mean’s
two birth certificate’s. The “new” issue would have “altered”
marked on it. The “posted” colb does not say altered, so why are
the “record’s” sealed?
Think about it, I’m sure you’ll come up with the answer….