Certifigate: Claim: Obama Kenyan Birth Registration? The Saga Continues
After questionable bouts of alleged censorship have been hitting both attorneys Dr. Orly Taitz’ and Mario Apuzzo’s blogs over the past few days, Dr. Taitz, attorney for Plaintiffs (albeit now a few less) in cases including Keyes v. Obama, has filed for a Motion for Rogatory discovery regarding the following document:
Click on the following picture to get a bigger view of it:
WorldNetDaily had the following to say in the developing story:
The document lists Obama’s parents as Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Obama, formerly Stanley Ann Dunham, the birth date as Aug. 4, 1961, and the hospital of birth as Coast General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
Document enlarged to show detail alleges Barack Obama was born at Coast General Hospital in Mombasa on Aug. 4, 1961No doctor is listed. But the alleged certificate bears the signature of the deputy registrar of Coast Province, Joshua Simon Couya. It was allegedly issued as a certified copy of the original in February 1964.
WND was able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical.
An enlarged view of the bottom of the document
Last week, a counterfeit document purporting to be Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate made the rounds of the Internet, but was quickly determined to be fraudulent. The new document released by Taitz bears none of the obvious traits of a hoax.
Unfortunately, WND did not immediately provide a copy of the specimen used for comparison purposes.
Regarding Dr. Taitz’ motion, here is the Wikipedia explanation for a Letter Rogatory:
A Letter Rogatory or Letter of Request is a formal request from a court to a foreign court for some type of judicial assistance. The most common remedies sought by Letters Rogatory are service of process and taking of evidence.
Service of process
Courts may serve documents only to individuals within the court’s jurisdiction. One exception to this rule is states that invoke universal jurisdiction, granting their courts ubiquitous domain. Therefore a person seeking to take an action against a person in another country will need to seek assistance from the judicial authorities in the other country. This is of course assuming the court in his own country has jurisdiction to hear the case matter. As a hypothetical example, Alice in the United States wishes to sue Roberto in Argentina. Alice issues her summons in a U.S. court, and must then petition a court in Argentina by means of a Letter Rogatory to serve the process on Roberto.
The use of Letters Rogatory for purposes of service of process to initiate court action is now largely confined to the Americas. As between countries in Europe, Asia, and North America, service of process is effected without resort to Letters Rogatory, under the provisions of the Hague Service Convention.
Taking of evidence
Another reason why a Court may require assistance from a foreign court is to obtain evidence from a witness. This evidence may be to answer questions relevant to the determination of an issue of fact, or fordisclosure of documents.
Courts only have power to subpoena witnesses from within their own country. So for example Alice in the U.S. could not summon Jean from France to the U.S. courthouse. Instead the U.S. court would issue a letter Rogatory to a French court, who would then examine Jean in France, and send a deposition back to the requesting court.
Insofar as requests to United States courts are concerned, the use of letters rogatory for requesting the taking of evidence has been replaced in large part by applications under 28 U.S.C. section 1782, or Section 1782 Discovery.
In many cases, the witness is willing to provide the testimony. However, the target court may compel the testimony of a witness who is unwilling to appear.
Generally, the target court will agree to the request unless it violates a policy of the target jurisdiction. For example, in the United States, it is usually appropriate in a civil case to depose every available witness, while in Canada, you may only depose one witness from each party. However, a Canadian court would most likely agree to the pre-trial deposition of a witness who could be compelled to testify in the United States. [emphases original]
According to Charles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in Kerchner v. Obama, we now have two different documents circulating the Internet, both alleging to formally represent the origins of Mr. Obama — but, to date, neither have been independently verified as genuine by document experts:
We now have a picture of a paper document provided only on the internet by Obama saying he was born in Hawaii. And now we have a picture of a paper document on the internet provided from Kenya saying he was born in Kenya.
We have statements from people in Kenya, Obama’s paternal grandmother saying he was born in Kenya and she held him in the hospital the day he was born in Mombasa, Kenya. And we have the Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S. acknowledging that it is common knowledge in Kenya since 2004 that Obama was born in Kenya.
On the other side we have no contemporaneous witnesses coming forth to verify that they were present and/or have first hand knowledge that Obama was born in Hawaii. The Hawaiian official say there is a “vital record” in their files saying his birth was “recorded” in Hawaii. There statements are only as good as the veracity of those proffered vital records back in 1961 or whenever they were provided to the state of Hawaii. But with the extremely lax birth registration laws in Hawaii in 1961, Obama could very well have been “born in Kenya” and “had his birth registered in Hawaii” by the grandmother or mother using the simple mail-in birth registration form, with no 3rd party witnesses needed, which was permitted under the rules and regs in 1961. See attached report for more about how easy it was to falsely register a birth in Hawaii in 1961.
Two pictures on the internet. Which one is real? Or are both real docs but the underlying facts in Hawaii were based on false statements by the grandmother or mother in 1961 to obtained U.S. citizenship for her new born son, born in Kenya. We need a forensic investigation both in Hawaii and Kenya to determine the truth.
Here are the links to the pictures of the documents and the CIA Officer commissioned investigators report as to how easy it would be to falsely register back in 1961 that a child was born in Hawaii when the child was not born there and could have been born anywhere.
Picture on the Internet of Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate
Picture on the Internet of Obama’s Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth
More details on the breaking news at WorldNetDaily
We should have a decision date in our case this week, hopefully tomorrow. Things are going to get very interesting on this matter in August, imo. The Congress needs to convene an emergency session to do a full scale investigation of this matter in both the Senate and the House with full subpoena powers by both political parties and launch a full forensic investigation of all records in Hawaii and Kenya and in Great Britain, where duplicate copies of birth in the British Colonies were kept in 1961. They should take testimony before Congress of Obama himself under oath on this matter or get a sworn deposition done of him in the White House under oath, on this matter. Obama needs to speak personally on this and under oath. They should have done this in the Spring of 2008 when they investigated McCain. But for the sake of the country, the world, and our Constitution, they need to do it now … and as they say, let the chips fall where they may!
CitizenWells once again points out what we both reported concerning Mr. Obama’s recent visit to Ghana:
CitizenWells makes note of a graphic that had been posted online from USAfricaOnline.com (still currently available) from back in 2008:
As a concerned citizen pointed out to me, everything that this President does is dictated by message control — to the tune of about $100,000 per week.
A site that bills itself as “Obama’s Hidden Birth Certificate FAQ” is also tracking this story.
Also, Joseph Farah, Editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily, has a Twitter account on which he had recently made the following promises:
Trust me for now: More coming next week on Birth-gate. You will be stunned. No more will anyone say there’s “no evidence.”
Watch WND for next few minutes to see breaking story of a purported Kenyan certificate of birth that has appeared
The reason I post this story as a claim is because I don’t know who gave this document to Dr. Taitz. Based on the above pictures, it would certainly appear to be a relevant document for discussion, but of course nobody at this point knows if it’s a genuine document.
We do know that there are now two documents that allege Mr. Obama having been born in two geographically disparate locations. We also know that both documents both allege the same set of parents and that Mr. Obama was born on August 4, 1961. And if the Kenyan registration is to be believed, it purports the city hospital that Mr. Obama’s grandmother is alleged to have said he was born — in Mombasa; the HI COLB does not make any such pronouncement.
If the Kenyan document is legitimate — meaning that the Kenyan authorities verify that it is from the Birth Register of the Province — we would subsequently have prima facia evidence that Barack Hussein Obama had pulled a Sun Yat-sen!
Update: [Opposition to eligibility] site NativeBornCitizen presents the following posting with some observations that certainly shouldn’t go unnoticed, including the allegation that only a photo has been submitted to the Court for the Letter Rogatory:
Dr C reports that Orly has filed a motion claiming that she has discovered another Birth Certificate for President Obama, this one from the Republic of Kenya
Read here
I will add more later. Note however the registrar’s name E.F. Lavender. Has anyone heard of Earth-Friendly Lavender detergent?
And what about this?
As Free Republic notices
Finally, the security watermarking on the paper seems to be in German or perhaps Dutch… Yet this is a British Colony. Something’s not kosher. I can make out what seems to be “…KERHIET GOED DUT DIT ZALNUT VERANDIRES DIT IST GEEN GELDIG DOCUMENT VAN DE OVELHEID. DIT IS POLITIEKI COMMINTAAR HU IS VOURZITTER VOOR MINSTEN DREI EN EEN HALT VAN . . .” Could be South African Afrikaans?
Another irregularity is that the document is dated early 1964 while Kenya did not officially become a Republic in December 1964. So why does it say “The Republic of Kenya”. In fact the original Kenya Constitution of 1963, Kenya became independent in December 1963, does not use the term Republic of Kenya, just Kenya.
Update: A commenter by the name of “Holly” at the CountryFirst forum made the following observations:
This explains it all
Here we go:
Ann filed for Divorce Jan. 20, 1964 (Inauguration Day – what are the odds?), and the date was set by the presiding judge for the trial to commence 30 days after Obama SR would have responded to his notification, sent to Cambridge, Mass (Cambridge – what are the odds? ).
Judge Samuel P. King who granted the divorce – last I heard was retired and alive (for now) in his 90s in Hawaii — MAY or MAY NOT have asked to see the Marriage Certificate. BUT, I bet Judge King asked to see Obama JR’s Birth Certificate to confirm Ann’s claims that Obama SR was in fact the father. That is “standard” policy to have a Birth Certificate in case the mother asks for child support from the father (or Welfare) later after the divorce. Judge King probably told Ann to produce a birth certificate before or at trial, which would have been sometime in mid- to late-February 1964 HAD Obama SR answered his notice that was sent to Cambridge.
When Judge King wrote the order on Jan. 23, he had his clerk notify Obama SR via what’s referred to as a “knock and nail”. That is, the postman leaves the notification on the door for (generally) 10 days and retrieves it after that time passes — signed or unsigned. That order was sent on Jan. 23 via airmail from Hawaii and was probably posted on Obama SR’s door Jan. 27-28.
Obama SR’s notification was unsigned by him and apparently IGNORED — either he didn’t want to accept it OR he was NOT at that location.
However, Judge King granted the divorce to Ann Obama (which changed back to Ann Dunham) exactly 60 days from when the original order was request by Ann by default.
NOW, my guess is that Judge King asked to see Obama JR’s Birth Certificate before he’d be willing to grant the divorce, either at trial or by default on March 20, 1964. Ann probably didn’t have the birth certificate when she filed on Jan 20. That’s when this birth certificate would have been generated — before trial for the 1964 divorce.
Important side note: the Certificate issue date of Feb 17, 1964, is JUST A FEW SHORT MONTHS AFTER KENYA BECAME INDEPENDENT on Dec. 12, 1963. TO THIS DATE, this may be the only certificate on Kenyan file today if British documents were sent to the UK for archiving leading up Kenya becoming an independent nation.
If you note the date on the Certified Copy, it was created by the Registrar in Kenya on Feb. 17, 1964. The Kenyan Birth Certificate would have been issued in the midst of the divorce — AFTER the divorce was filed by Ann in Hawaii on Jan. 20, but BEFORE the divorce was granted by Judge King on March 20.
Furthermore, it’s quite plausible that once Ann actually had this Kenyan birth certificate in her hands, and the divorce was granted on March 20, her attorney, George Kerr, counseled her on Hawaiian birth certificate “loopholes” and told her how to file for a Hawaiian “Certificate of Delayed Birth” to get Welfare or OTHER support for young Obama as a child of a non-supporting foreign national.
As Hawaiian law allows, that CODB could have been “upgraded” later to a “Certificate of Live Birth” in the 60s or 70s, which would then be a “root document” of the shorter “Certification of Live Birth” we see today presented as proof of birth from Barack Hussein Obama II.
I can’t vouch for the veracity of the Kenyan birth certificate itself, not knowing how or from whom Orly obtained the birth certificate (the chain of evidence). It may have been obtained quite surreptitiously from the only filed Kenyan birth certificate record copy requested — likely generated from the 1964 divorce.
It’s QUITE possible that all other copies of this Kenyan birth certificate may have been scrubbed from Kenyan archives, but this one may have survived in a lone Vital Statistics office somewhere in Kenya not known about until now.
HOWEVER — the dates DO “line up” for the Kenyan Birth Certificate to be REAL.
Update: TexasDarlin is also covering the story:
…Hawaii law allows parents or relatives to register a child’s birth by merely filling out paperwork in the absence of the actual physical birth, as an alternative to the automatic registration that occurs when a child is born in a local hospital. It’s conceivable that Barry’s grandparents put his birth on record, even if the actual birth was not in Hawaii. I can imagine that Stanley Ann’s parents were educated and concerned enough to take this step to protect their grandson’s citizenship….not, of course, for any future political ambitions, but just to preserve the numerous everyday ordinary benefits that confer upon American citizens. For the same reason, Stanley and Madeleine Dunham may have notified the Honolulu Examiner’s birth announcements department. Alternatively, their daughter Stanley Ann may have registered Barry’s birth after-the-fact herself.
I will remain skeptical of the legitamacy of the Kenyan Birth Certificate that has just mysteriously popped up until it’s authenticated, in the same way that I am skeptical of the COLB image. However, if the Kenyan BC is valid, note that it was issued in Feb. 1964, one month before the supposed Dunham-Obama divorce. It seems logical that Obama Sr. might have sought verification of Barry’s birth as part of the divorce proceeding. [NOTE: I see that Lame Cherry (h/t Dr. Kate) suggests that Stanley Ann may have sought this BC for the divorce proceedings].
Regardless, I still maintain that Barry got a new Hawaiian Birth Certificate in the name Soetoro when he was adopted by step-dad Lolo from Indonesia, and if there was an original one in the name Obama, that would have been sealed per state law. We were first to publish that theory in The Paper Trail: Obama’s Indonesian Background.
I think I need to remind everyone once again that this is a claim that has yet to be substantiated, the authentication could potentially lead to the discovery of geninue documents regarding Mr. Obama’s background, and that this story is about a birth registration, not a birth certificate, certification, etc.
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
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
[...] http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6908 [...]
[...] here: The Right Side of Life » Certifigate: Claim: Obama Kenyan Birth … Tags: certificate, documents-were, only, short, side-note, Today [...]
1 HistorianDude did not think we should see the full extent of Janice Okubo’s remarks to Polifact in the articles he quotes. Okubo, Hawaii DoH PRO, said in the Polifact interview: “When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it. I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site [Obama's own Fightthesmears.com] represents.” What does this mean? Apart from indicating the curious absence of a cultural memory in Hawaii Vital Records about whether they ever did send Obama a COLB, let’s just say if Okubo’s remarks supported HistorianDude’s interpretation of the case then….he would not have witheld them from us, which is always suspicious.
2 The status of Obama’s COLB (if it exists) as evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence encompasses FRE Rules #902(1), #902(4), #803(6), #902(11), #901(b)7, #1001(3), and #1005, none of which are concerned with the accuracy of the data, only with the admissibility of the electronic record and its printed copy.
Federal Rule of Evidence #902(1) refers only to original public documents, having no application to electronic copies, or duplicates, thus excluding COLBs.
Federal Rule of Evidence #902(4) refers to copies of public records including electronic records, or more precisely certifications of electronic records: “Certifed copies of public records – A copy of an official record or report or entry therein, or of a document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed in a public office, including data compilations in any form, certified as correct by the custodian…”
A Hawaii paper COLB is not a public record in its own right: it merely copies and then claims to “certify” the existence of an electronic record – that is why it is called a Certification of Live Birth. A Certification of Live Birth claims to “certify” that the information which it “certifies” is a true representation of a dataset held in electonic form in Hawaii on DoH electronic servers. The policy of the US Department of Justice under FRE Rule #902(4) is that the certification of such an electronic dataset must bear an actual handwritten signature, rather than a facsimile in the form of an ink stamp or machine stamp: therefore such stamps are not of equal legal weight and authority to an actual handwritten signature.
Then there’s FRE Rule #803(6):
“Electronic Fingerprints“, Adam Wolfson, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 104, No. 1 (Oct., 2005)
“Almost all federal courts [except USAF Court of Criminal Appeals and USN-Marine Corps Court of Military Review] and many state courts, regard all computer records as hearsay that may only be admitted under the business records or public records exceptions [FRE 803(6)]… Computer-stored records…are deemed the electronic equivalent of handwritten documents. Since they are created or maintained by a human, they are considered statements and must therefore satisfy a hearsay exception [FRE 803(6)] in order to be admitted…”
FRE #803(6) references FRE #902(11) for its authentication standard, which establishes that records are only “admissible under Rule 803(6) if accompanied by a written declaration of its custodian…” The FRE Advisory Committee Notes on Rule #902(11) state: “A declaration that satisfies 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1746 would satisfy the declaration requirement of Rule 902(11), as would any comparable certification under oath.” A declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 must read substantially, as Obama’s COLB (if it exists) does not, thus: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date) (Signature)”. Except for New Jersey, federal and state laws and regulations do NOT permitand will NOT accept affidavits containing this declaration when submitted with a facsimile or stamped signature. Furthermore, given that the dataset entries into the COLB’s electronic database were not, as Rule 803(6) stipulates, contemporaneous with the event recorded (birth=1961 whereas database=2001), the terms of FRE #803(6) may not admit Obama’s COLB (if it exists) as evidence.
And FRE Rule #901(b)7:
“…The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfed by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims….[that it is] a writing authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office, or a purported public record, report, statement, or data compilation, in any form [and] is from the public office where items of this nature are kept.”
This Rule is satisfied through the operation of Rule #902(4), according to the US Department of Justice, by the proponent submitting proof of official custody of electronic records, in the form of a certification with a handwritten signature attesting custody, testimony of the official custodian, testimony of the official keeper, or testimony of a witness who has knowledge of official keeping.
Finally, FRE Rule #1005:
“The contents of an official record, or of a document authorized to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed, including data compilations in any form, if otherwise admissible, may be proved by copy, certifed as correct in accordance with rule 902 or testifed to be correct by a witness…”
which requires, according to the US Department of Justice, applying Rule #902(4) as the authentication standard for electronic data records, and thus is fulfilled by a certification with a handwritten signature attesting to custody, or testimony of official custody. It should be remembered that Obama’s COLB (if it exists) does not duplicate his original 1961 birth record, and (if it exists) consequently does not prove his 1961 record. This is easily understood from Rule #1001(3) which states: “If data are stored in a computer or similar device, any printout or other output readable by sight, shown to refect the data accurately, is an ‘original’.” A COLB printout is an “original” of the reduced and computer stored dataset, not an original of the complete and more detailed data source which originated the edited dataset.
3 The following linked analysis from May 30, 2008 by the US Deputy Attorney General, “Admissibility In Federal Court Of Electronic Copies Of Personnel Records,” should provide HistorianDude with an up-to-date authority to correct and augment his distinctly less than informed and less than objective opinions on the isssue. HistorianDude should study it carefully, and if he finds anything there which supports his prejudices maybe he can enlighten us. http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2008/electronic-personnel-records.pdf
Conclusion: No actual, handwritten signature certifying authenticity is visible in any online image purporting to show Obama’s COLB. Right now, without a real, handwritten signature or testimony as to custody, Obama’s COLB (if it exists) and its purported images are invalid and inadmissible in a federal court and therefore have not been proven to be authentic. Without a real, handwritten signature or testimony certifying Obama’s Hawaii COLB (if it exists) as authentic… then Obama has not proven his eligibility to any elective office in the US Constitution.
Proof: the word that HistorianDude has cheapened by over-compensating and intimidatory repetition, with no basis in reason, fact, or law.
“…decisions stating that signature stamps are legal..” HistorianDude
Given the complexity of the issue, vague opinions without context mean precisely nothing. For recent analyses read the Deputy Attorney General’s 2008 opinion linked above or this discussion of Lorraine v. Markel: Jeffrey D. Bukowski, “E-Discovery Without Admissibility is Useless”, Proof: American Bar Association, Volume 17, Number 1, Fall 2008. http://tinyurl.com/mod6nl
“FRoE #902(1) and #902 (4) do not say what you claim they do…They never say anything about “an actual, handwritten signature” or… “ink or machine stamps”…You are making all of that up out of whole cloth.” HistorianDude
HistorianDude should read more or lie less, and learn humility.
He can start here (in which case we may not be hearing from him for some while):
Evidence: Christopher B. Mueller and Laird C. Kirkpatrick, $75.00, Aspen Publishers, ISBN: 9780735579682, 1,344 pages
Buy at http://tinyurl.com/Amazon-Evidence
Read at http://tinyurl.com/Google-Evidence
Ubiquity as authority http://tinyurl.com/M-K-cited
Give particular attention, for example, to pages 1451, 1454, 1458, and 1464, which expressly discuss the legal inadequacy of facismiles and machine-made signatures, and which stress that under the FRE Rules which apply to electronic records and copies only actual, written signatures certify authenticity.
Always support the facts so the facts always support the case: why lie?
bystander,
It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t care. However, you really should watch those baseless leading conclusions.
-Phil
Phil, if it matters so much to you, why don’t you ask Factcheck yourself? I won’t, because I don’t care – you won’t for obvious reasons. It is increasingly obvious that no amount of evidence will get you to admit that HI produced the COLB – you would rather believe the completely discredited Polarik, who we can now prove lied about his document analysis experience and qualifications (he has neither), than the HI officials who have stated categorically and unequivocally that Obama was born in HI. Nobody but Polarik has ever claimed the COLB is forged – there is now not a single credible piece of evidence to doubt the HI COLB. And the COLB is the only thing that matters to prove eligibility, everything else is just a sideshow.
The YEC nonsense matters – if you are willing to accept a silly fairytale in the face of the accumulated knowledge in the fields of geology, biology, geophysics, chemistry, physics and cosmology – then there is nothing anyone can do to help you. I could show you ice core analysis going back 200,000 years proving YEC is nonsense, and you would no doubt refuse to believe it because you didn’t know the name of the technician that took the samples. Just as you don’t accept the HI officials word because they won’t reveal to you the correspondence requesting the COLB. There will always be one more irrelevant details that you need before you can accept evidence, or if given the detail, you just move the goalposts again. It’s tiresome and dishonest.
You choose to remain ignorant about science. With the COLB issue I doubt very much if you believe half the rubbish you post. Maybe in the beginning, but as all your theories crumble under the weight of evidence, I suspect you are just too embarrassed to admit you were duped by Polarik, WND, Orly and the rest of the gang – so you continue with this ridiculous charade because it keeps your website ticking along.
Enjoy your notoriety – you’ve earned it.
bystander,
I was wondering when someone was going to take the proverbial bait of my confession (really, apologetics — from the Greek root, apologaeia (I think is the spelling)) of believing in “young Earth” creationism and attempt to use it against me. However, while I won’t back down from that earlier confession, I’m also going to make sure that you have enough proverbial rope with which to rhetorically hang yourself on this argument.
So, since I have no idea whether or not FactCheck.org lied regarding anything they claim on their site (they could have very much been duped themselves, I don’t know), the key fact remains. Many individuals in the opposition have claimed that reporter”s” have physically analyzed the HI COLB purportedly from Mr. Obama.
I’m merely asking for verifiable evidence of which reporters these were (so that some of us can do some follow-ups for the record) and to what degree they were able to observe the alleged document.
Apparently such a simple question is very difficult to be surmounted by the opposition who would prefer to employ the red herring logical fallacy of, “Well, since you believe in [totally unrelated subject with which I inherently disagree], that must necessarily mean that your question is subsequently irrelevant.”
Well, you tell me — per my latest posting as of this commentary, I see a site that’s able to manufacture birth registrations. As a casual observer myself, you’ll have to pardon me that I’ve become j-j-j-jaded (apologies to Aerosmith!) over any image of any document posted online, including the HI COLB.
And that, my dear commenter, doesn’t require a belief in anything to question, simply engaging in the pursuit of the truth.
-Phil
Please cite the actual sources of “reporters” who have “personally held[ and] photographed” the document outside of FactCheck.org.
-Phil
Moving the goalposts again, Phil? Are you suggesting Factcheck lied? It seems pointless providing you with more evidence. As a Young Earth Creationist you are clearly prepared to take ridiculous positions despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary – being a birther fits the pattern perfectly.
I had thought there was some point in engaging with you – the YEC revelation is the last straw. There is no point in arguing with someone that does not have the intellectual capacity to reject the YEC nonsense.
[...] Phil wrote an interesting post today onThe Right Side of Life » Certifigate: Claim: Obama Kenyan Birth <b>…</b>Here’s a quick excerpt [...]
HistorianDude,
Please cite the actual sources of “reporters” who have “personally held[ and] photographed” the document outside of FactCheck.org.
-Phil
Wrong.
There also is an actual paper COLB, as evidenced by the accounts of reporters who personally held, photographed, and wrote about it. It is that document to which I refer. You can refer to it too, if you want. But I know how inconvenient to your argument it would be.
Why are we even having this conversation if I “not once, not ever” did so? We are having it because I differentiated between them. Have you forgotten?
Except of that we have conclusive evidence that the Kenyan BC is a fake. There is no similar evidence that Obama’s is anything but genuine, to include the testimony of people who have personally inspected it.
We have conclusive evidence that the Kenyan BC is a fake. There is no similar evidence that Obama’s is anything but genuine, to include the testimony of people who have personally inspected it and verified its authenticity.
Of course not.
Because the “factcheck thingy” is not an online COLB. It is testimony from people who personally inspected the actual physical document and declared it authentic.
Ever since that moment, every single Birther assertion that “all we have ever seen is an on-line image” has been little more than wishful thinking.
That’s why.
The physical document inspected by the FactCheck team.
Who Are You Kidding:
FRoE #902(1) and #902 (4) do not say what you claim they do. In fact they are the exact same rules I would have cited to contradict your claim.
They are rules for when “Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required.”
They never say anything about “an actual, handwritten signature” or that “ink or machine stamps” are not acceptable. You are making all of that up out of whole cloth.
Actually, that is not true. Janice Okubo certainly made a statement to that affect when first approached on the issue over a year ago by Politifact.com. “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” she said.
Second, they do not have to “admit” signing anything. The signature is already right there on the document. Were it a fake, on the other hand, they would have a legal obligation to deny its authenticity.
And they rather pointedly have not done so, instead choosing to issue a formal statement that Obama was born in Hawaii.
It is already signed and sealed.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, “A signature may be written by hand, printed, stamped, typewritten, engraved, photographed or cut from one instrument and attached to another…And whatever mark, symbol, or device one may choose to employ as representative of himself is sufficient.”
There are also U.S. Federal Appellate decisions stating that signature stamps are legal and have the same effect as a signature.
Next?
HistorianDude: Obama’s COLB also has one signature, that of the “State Registrar” Dr. Alvin Onaka.
Phil: Actually, it’s a stamped “signature” [in photo of back of Obama's purported COLB].
HistorianDude: Of course it is. Your point?… At the risk of pointing out something that is overtly obvious and blatantly so obvious as to make me wonder why you are spinning as you are, the stamp on the Obama COLB is, by law Alvin T. Onaka’s signature of equal legal weight and authority as if he had signed it with an ink pen instead of an ink stamp. [emphasis applied]
The point is that under the Federal Rules of Evidence #902(1) and #902(4) any Federal or State public record is not admissible in court without an actual, handwritten signature by its custodian attesting to its veracity. “Attestation” here connotes “signature“. Facsimiles (ink stamps or machine stamps) are not acceptable. (Naturally such records can be challenged under other Rules.)
No Hawaii Department of Health authority has ever issued any official or unofficial statement that the online images of Obama’s COLB posted at various websites represent any document issued by them, much less have they ever admitted physically signing one.
Obama’s COLB (if it exists), submitted to a court in the form that its online images purport it to be right now, proves absolutely nothing about Obama’s birth: that COLB (if it exists) is not admissible evidence. Gotta be signed and sealed.
HistorianDude is welcome to cite any legal or academic authority he can find to refute this……