Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

It's Official: Experts says Barrack Obama's Birth Certificate is a Forged Document

page: 37
99
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
For an American to get a first time passport;


travel.state.gov...

Primary Evidence of U.S. Citizenship (One of the following):

Previously issued, undamaged U.S. Passport
Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state*
Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Certification of Birth
Naturalization Certificate
Certificate of Citizenship

*A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.


Beginning April 1, 2011, all birth certificates must also include the full names of the applicant's parent(s). For more information, please see New Requirement for all U.S. Birth Certificates.


You need a BC to get a passport ?




posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ontarff
The forms released for both Obama and the twins are the Hawaiian long form. The NVSD form requires more data.
And why is the NVSD form required? Your source doesn’t cite any authorities to support the claim that the “standard, federal NVSD ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ ... is the only form of natal documentation qualified to validate the natural-born citizenship of the bearer.”

I didn’t see any references to any law or other authoritative sources. Only the blog’s author opinion.

On the other hand, from the notes of 5 USC 301, enacted by Public Law 108-458, known as the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, it provided for “Minimum Standards for Birth Certificates.” And what are the requirements?

at a minimum, shall require certification of the birth certificate by the State or local government custodian of record that issued the certificate, and shall require the use of safety paper or an alternative, equally secure medium, the seal of the issuing custodian of record, and other features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or otherwise duplicating the birth certificate for fraudulent purposes

And all of these features are present in both certificates released by Obama. Both are certified by the state custodian of record (the state registrar), are on safety paper, and have the seal of the issuing custodian of record.

Unless you can point to any federal law, or equally authoritative source, to support the blog’s claim that “only the NSVD form is qualified to validate natural-born citizenship,” I can’t accept it as anything other than the opinion of the blog’s author, which doesn’t mean much.


Still, it remains remarkable that the Hawaii Department of Health and the White House released the Obama birth certificate without the type of authenticating information that appears at the bottom of the Nordyke twins' birth certificates.
This is not true. Both of Obama’s certificates have the required authenticating information. Instead of typewritten, like apparently they did in 1961, the authenticating information is now by stamp.

I don’t understand this insistance on that everything must look exactly like it did in 1961. Such a conclusion fails (1) to fundamentally understand what certification means, and (2) to take into account that Obama doesn’t have the first 1961 birth certificate issued to his parents, so everything he presents now was issued and certified subsequently.


On another thread you state ... What you fail to state is that the documents in question were released as "proof"
Depends on what documents are you talking about exactly. If by documents you mean the physical documents then yes, they are proof. If you are talking about the PDF, no, it’s not proof — it’s a digital representation of said proof in order to be accessed and viewed freely by millions of people on the internet.


Isn't that contradictory to your argument that a court or Congress would not evaluate this discrepancy?
No. And I’ll explain why.

The birthers accusation is that Obama is not eligible. If you ever got to court, or Congress, how would that determination be made? You’d look at the birth certificate. Obama’s birth certificate is a physical document, not the PDF.

If asked, then, Obama would submit one of the physical documents. That would, in all likelihood, be the end of it. If the court, or Congress, however, wouldn’t accept that as sufficient, they could order an inspection of the original record to confirm the accuracy of the issued certified copy.

In the hypothetical event the physical documents don’t match the information in the original record then the charge, among others, would, supposedly, be regarding the fabrication of the physical documents.

According to 18 USC 1028, “Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information”—

(3) the term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, political subdivision of a foreign government, an international governmental or an international quasi-governmental organization which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals;
(4) the term “false identification document” means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that—

The PDF file is not “accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals,” nor was it intended to be accepted as such. Only as a digital representation of something that is “intended and is accepted” as the identification of individuals — his actual physical birth certificate — for the purposes of accessibility.

The PDF would never play a part in the process, if it were ever to happen.

So I stand by everything I said about the unimportance and irrelevance of the PDF file.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I know *I* can request a copy of My BC. And *I* can show it about.


Actually in most states (I'd be suprised if not all): No you can't.
The Original will be kept under lock and key, and all you will get an abstract or a copy.
If you doubt that, take a look what happened when Trump made the same claim you just did.


Um... I bolded stuff in the quote above... This makes no sense.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ontarff
You have asked more than one question that I have answered several times already.


No, you have not. I notice this trend in birther threads. You deflect and deflect and then finally just complain that you already answered when you never did. My only real problem with that is that it is about as far from an honest search for the real truth as possible.


You have quoted my response to your question. I will have no further discussion with you for "take your deflective attitude and couch it, homes" and "you should probably get back to your crayons" ad hominem language. Good day.


Exactly what you get when I try to politely have a sincere discussion for pages and the best you can do is respond with snarky deflections. Eventually you get it back. If you actually cared about the truth behind this issue and genuinely wanted to find the truth instead of just anything that might help back up the belief you cling so tightly to, this could have been far more productive and interesting. Eventually I get sick of holding your hand and asking the same things over and over and over and over and over and over.

If only you had just provided an answer or two things would have been much easier.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Depends on what documents are you talking about exactly. If by documents you mean the physical documents then yes, they are proof. If you are talking about the PDF, no, it’s not proof — it’s a digital representation of said proof in order to be accessed and viewed freely by millions of people on the internet.


This is NOT what the White House states...

In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. The state sent the campaign the President’s birth certificate, the same legal documentation provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state, and the campaign immediately posted it on the internet. That birth certificate can be seen here (PDF).

www.whitehouse.gov...

This White House statement, "The President's birth certificate, the SAME legal documentation... can be seen here" is NOT written as "A digital representation of that birth certificate..." etc, etc.

I would argue that this infers that the digital evidence provided IS or the printing of that specific .pdf file IS represented as "proof".

Now, if it could be determined that the .pdf provided by the White House is indeed fraudulent, this would lead any reasonable judge/jury to demand the original 1961 hard copy birth certificate to support your premise.

Your comments,

If asked, then, Obama would submit one of the physical documents. That would, in all likelihood, be the end of it. If the court, or Congress, however, wouldn’t accept that as sufficient, they could order an inspection of the original record to confirm the accuracy of the issued certified copy. In the hypothetical event the physical documents don’t match the information in the original record then the charge, among others, would, supposedly, be regarding the fabrication of the physical documents.


support my position that I have stated in this thread many times, that the original 1961 typed hard copy BC is the only empirical evidence of live birth. Associated original 1961 medical records from the Hawaiian hospital where Obama was supposedly born would also support your position. However, to date, these records have not yet been provided.

Maybe we will get to the heart of the truth as the legal process progresses. You have discredited Orly Taitz in this thread, and I am sure the "ant-birthers" will continue, but she has made progress in trying to overcome the cover-up.


The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii issued and served a subpoena on July 5, 2011 to the director of the Hawaii Health Department for Obama’s original birth certificate (Jul. 5, 2011) — A process server has delivered a Hawaii court-issued subpoena to Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, commanding her “to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying testing, or sampling of the material:” original 1961 typewritten birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, III [sic] issued 08.08.1961, signed by Dr. David Sinclair, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and registrar Lee, stored in the Health Department of the State of HI from 08081961 until now. The subpoena allows Fuddy until August 8, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. to produce the document.

thearizonasentinel.com...


The PDF file is not “accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals,” nor was it intended to be accepted as such.


I would argue that the statement on the White House website (above) contradicts your interpretation.


So I stand by everything I said about the unimportance and irrelevance of the PDF file.


And I will continue to stand by my position about the importance and relevance of the .pdf documents released by the White House to support the premise that President Obama is NOT legally eligible to be POTUS.

Our judicial system will hopefully do what is necessary for us to get to the truth...

You stated

Your position suffers from one fatal factor: Obama is not under any legal obligation to publicly present his birth certificate, let alone personally convince you of its authenticity or let you or Orly Taitz inspect it.

I guess the court disagrees. A subpoena has been served.

Most persons in this country continue to be ignorant to the details of this matter because the MSM does not care to provide any coverage of the matter. I have not seen any major newspaper coverage of the fact that the subpoena has been served per 44 USC 2205 and Rule 45 to Loretta J. Fuddy, Hawaii Health Department Director either.


(2) subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke, Presidential records shall be made available--

(A) pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding;

(B) to an incumbent President if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of his office and that is not otherwise available; and

(C) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, to any committee or subcommittee thereof if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of its business and that is not otherwise available...

www.archives.gov...


(D) Command to Produce; Included Obligations. A command in a subpoena to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things requires the responding party to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the materials.

www.law.cornell.edu...

I would ask that all that want to get to the truth, one way or the other, please write to your elected officials and see how they respond as your representative.

Stay tuned...

edit on 7/13/2011 by ontarff because: additional quote by aptness.
edit on 7/13/2011 by ontarff because: sentence incomplete.
edit on 7/13/2011 by ontarff because: additional external text and link added.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ontarff
This is NOT what the White House states...

The state sent the campaign the President’s birth certificate, the same legal documentation provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state, and the campaign immediately posted it on the internet. That birth certificate can be seen here (PDF).
This White House statement, "The President's birth certificate, the SAME legal documentation... can be seen here" is NOT written as "A digital representation of that birth certificate..." etc, etc.
I honestly can’t believe you’re serious about this.

What person reads the sentence “[t]hat birth certificate can be seen here (PDF)” on the internet and argues that, with this, they didn’t mean they were posting “a digital representation of that birth certificate”?!

Do you understand the concept of posting something on the internet? Everything is a digital representation. But I guess the fact that you were reading this information online, and you were accessing a file distinctively marked PDF was not enough to understand what you are looking at is only a digital representation.

The White House statement was explicit, but they clearly made a mistake assuming only rational people would read it.


I would argue that this infers that the digital evidence provided IS or the printing of that specific .pdf file IS represented as "proof".
If that were so the President could print it and use it as his birth certificate. Is this what you’re suggesting?


You have discredited Orly Taitz in this thread
Orly discredited herself by (1) not knowing the law, (2) not having any evidence of anything she claims, and (3) being incapable of learning from her, numerous, mistakes.


and I am sure the "ant-birthers" will continue, but she has made progress in trying to overcome the cover-up.
I also made a mistake. I took you seriously when you said you were hoping this would be discussed ‘intelligently,’ and made several references to the “scientific method” and “empirical evidence.”

But, apparently, you already know there is “a cover-up,” even though you have presented no evidence to back up these claims.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ontarff
 


You misread what it said. Unless the state of Hawaii issues its citizens a PDF of their BC as legal documentation.

A PDF cannot be used as a legal document. It isn't even a document!
The White House is saying that Hawaii showed the legal document that all Hawaiians use as proof of their birth and citizenship............Then, it was uploaded online for all to see.

A PDF is a digital representation of said document. It's just a format used. This is because a document cannot magically be in more than one place at a time.
edit on 13-7-2011 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


What person reads the sentence “[t]hat birth certificate can be seen here (PDF)”

My mistake, this is NOT what was said in the text I posted from the White House.


If that were so the President could print it and use it as his birth certificate. Is this what you’re suggesting?


No, that is not what I am suggesting. However, this is what the Hawaii DoH does before it stamps the printed image with their seal and releases it, isn't it?

Again, let me remind you that your "anti-birther" sentiment is apparent by attempting to defend your argument by slandering your opposition...


The White House statement was explicit, but they clearly made a mistake assuming only rational people would read it.

I also made a mistake. I took you seriously when you said you were hoping this would be discussed ‘intelligently,’ and made several references to the “scientific method” and “empirical evidence.”


Inferring I am neither "rational" nor able to conduct an "intelligent" discussion demonstrates how you and other anti-birthers persist in attempting to intimidate and bully your opposition. Ad hominem attacks are a weak defense. This is rude and disrespectful. Is this how you conduct yourself in a court of law? If you care to continue discussion with me, I will warn you to KNOCK IT OFF! Your subjective demeaning criticism does not add any credibility to your arguments nor your position. If you persist, I will end it.

Again, nobody has seen the empirical evidence to support either position one way or the other. You have not presented any evidence either.
edit on 7/13/2011 by ontarff because: additional quotations from aptness and response.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


A PDF cannot be used as a legal document. It isn't even a document! The White House is saying that Hawaii showed the legal document that all Hawaiians use as proof of their birth and citizenship............Then, it was uploaded online for all to see.


The State of Hawaii DoH sent the White House a supposedly scanned image printed on safety paper of the original long form BC. The DoH certified it with their official stamp. I agree with you and aptness that a .pdf file can not be used as a "document" per se. This is what was released as "proof". Is a scanned image different than a .pdf? If so, why wasn't this released in lieu? Could it legally be used in lieu? To date, the .pdf that has been used by the White House "in lieu" of the original 1961 evidence of live birth, is the only "proof" presented to the public. I would have to do more research on case law to confirm if digital documents are not legally acceptable by the court in contract law.


Yet, the concern that has generated the most discussion, and the one that we examine here, is whether electronically signed records meet writing and signature requirements. In many cases, the law requires that an agreement be both documented in "writing," [37] and "signed" by the person who is sought to be held bound, in order for that agreement to be enforceable. The Statute of Frauds is, of course, the best example of such a law. [38] Nevertheless, thousands of other federal, state, and local statutes and regulations also require a transaction to be documented by a writing and a signature. In Illinois, for example, over 3,000 statutory sections contain such requirements. Likewise, Georgia has over 5,500, and Ohio has over 8,000, such statutory sections.


HERE is an interesting link on the subject.

edit on 7/13/2011 by ontarff because: more information for clarification



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Forgive me ontarff, but I don't understand what it is exactly that you're stating.
If all Hawaiians use what their state sends them, (a copy of their BC), and the state recognizes this as proof of birth within that state, then what exactly is the problem? Am I wrong to assume that the state of Hawaii sent the president's adiministartion the same document that Joe Aloha would receive had he applied for one? Are you implying that the document that Obama received is somehopw different from other Hawaii documents?

The pdf isn't declaring "proof" of anything. That's my understanding of all this. It is merely a digital rep of what was indeed sent to the White House. It's only in pdf so that the public can look at it. Also, it was admittedly enhanced for security reasons.
edit on 13-7-2011 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
Forgive me ontarff, but I don't understand what it is exactly that you're stating.
If all Hawaiians use what their state sends them, (a copy of their BC), and the state recognizes this as proof of birth within that state, then what exactly is the problem? Am I wrong to assume that the state of Hawaii sent the president's adiministartion the same document that Joe Aloha would receive had he applied for one? Are you implying that the document that Obama received is somehopw different from other Hawaii documents?

The pdf isn't declaring "proof" of anything. That's my understanding of all this. It is merely a digital rep of what was indeed sent to the White House. It's only in pdf so that the public can look at it.


No, I am not implying the document was different than the one Joe Aloha would receive. My argument is that the White House has only released a .pdf as "proof" of Obama's live birth to the public.

Again, I agree with you and aptness that this .pdf of the COLB is not empirical proof. The only subjective "proven" facts identified by the experts, is that the .pdf posted by the White House is bogus. Because the .pdf is believed to be fraudulent, it necessitates further investigation supported with empirical proof of the original document.

I do not know if the Hawaii DoH has ever permitted access to anyone's original typed birth certificate to clear up any mistakes or accusations of fraud as in this example with Obama. I can't help but think this can't be the first time a COLB was questioned. If so, how was it resolved?

edit on 7/13/2011 by ontarff because: text editing



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ontarff
 


I see.

Well just out of curiosity, how would you propose the White House show "proof" of what they were sent?


BTW - That looks so awesome! I would love to learn how to fly.
edit on 13-7-2011 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by ontarff
 


I see.

Well just out of curiosity, how would you propose the White House show "proof" of what they were sent?


BTW - That looks so awesome! I would love to learn how to fly.
edit on 13-7-2011 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)


I wish you would read the entire thread. I have stated several times, the empirical evidence will speak for itself. This includes the original 1961 typed hard copy birth certificate, any witnesses that signed the certificate, and medical records from the hospital where he was born. To date, none of that has been proven to exist.
edit on 7/13/2011 by ontarff because: spelling



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ontarff
I wish you would read the entire thread. I have stated several times, the empirical evidence will speak for itself. This includes the original 1961 typed hard copy birth certificate, any witnesses that signed the certificate, and medical records from the hospital where he was born. To date, none of that has been proven to exist.
edit on 7/13/2011 by ontarff because: spelling


I wish you would answer the question you have been asked. "To date, none of that has been proven to exist." The question was, how do you expect it to be proven to you? Seems you have two choices. Demand Obama come to your house and show it to you in person along with everyone else that asks to see it, or he can post a digital image online and the birthers can just suck it. I am curious what you think that third option is.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ontarff
 


The original typed hardcopy? Do you have your typed hardcopy? Please explain why Obama would have to have the state of Hawaii break their regulations concerning original hardcopy BC simply to satisfy you? You're asking an awful lot there. Do you have any evidence as to why he should do this, or are you just curious? Yes I've read the thread, and every birther thread. I still have yet to see one reason for Obama to do any of what you propose. All I see is sour grapes and silliness and a donate button.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by ontarff
 


The original typed hardcopy? Do you have your typed hardcopy? Please explain why Obama would have to have the state of Hawaii break their regulations concerning original hardcopy BC simply to satisfy you? You're asking an awful lot there. Do you have any evidence as to why he should do this, or are you just curious? Yes I've read the thread, and every birther thread. I still have yet to see one reason for Obama to do any of what you propose. All I see is sour grapes and silliness and a donate button.


Yes, I do have an original hard copy birth certificate with my footprint issued by the hospital where I was born.

Obama is not going to ask Hawaii to break their regulations.The State of Hawaii DoH has been ordered to comply with the subpoena issued by the District Court to determine the eligibility of the POTUS. I, as many others, don't believe that asking a lot. The U.S. Constitution is being completely overlooked by our government. You don't think that is important? You "anti-birthers" are never going to be proven correct challenging us "birthers" until A FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF THE ORIGINAL 1961 BIRTH CERTIFICATE BY AN UNBIASED GROUP/COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS is ordered by the court to empirically support the .pdf file representing the certified COLB issued to Obama by the Hawaii DoH and A REPORT OF FINDINGS is released to the public. HOSPITAL RECORDS OF LIVE BIRTH would be used to support the original COLB. I have stated this over and over again. Please do not continue to claim I am not answering this question of what would be necessary to prove my position.

I am not attempting to change your beliefs.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ontarff

Yes, I do have an original hard copy birth certificate with my footprint issued by the hospital where I was born.




Are you serious? Footprinted birth certificates issued by hospitals are NOT legal birth certificates.

I hope you have a real one to because if you claim you have used that one as proof of birth, you are a liar.
edit on 13-7-2011 by Kitilani because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ontarff
 


That would be a souvenir, not a legal document.


Sorry Kitilani. You beat me to it. Footprints! haha
Obama had better get some footprints on the pdf before he's thrown in prison.
edit on 13-7-2011 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by ontarff
 


That would be a souvenir, not a legal document.


Sorry Kitilani. You beat me to it. Footprints! haha
Obama had better get some footprints on the pdf before he's thrown in prison.
edit on 13-7-2011 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)


I am just astounded that I keep seeing these birthers talk about "truth" and "evidence" and even tossing the word "empirical" around as if they knew how to use it all while writing posts like that one that display such an unbelievable level of ignorance about this topic it makes my head feel like it is going to explode.

I need to know how someone can trounce all over these threads, pretending to talk like an honest truth seeker with some real knowledge and then post something like "I have mine with the footprints from the hospital." I really need to know. If the first bit of knowledge these people did not gain was that birth certificates are issued by the department of health and not hospitals they might have gotten off on a better track.

That just kills me, absolutely kills me.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 


Which is why the term anti-birther makes me laugh. It's common sense and rational thought. I would only hope that if the Hawaii depratment of Health or Dr. Fukino herself presented a birther with the evidence they ask for, that they would put it to rest rather than claim it's a Hawaiian conspiracy to promote Obama's evil elitist NWO plans. Whatever the prevailing theory is nowadays





new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join