Updates on the Birth Certificate Fallout
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
So yesterday we had Birthmageddon and the larger reaction is spreading out. For one thing, Drudge had a fun little Drudge-tapositon (Drudge juxtaposition) as follows:
Which is cheap, but funny. Meanwhile, Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit is really flogging this “layering” story, asserting that the long form birth certificate is a fake. I pointed out yesterday where the National Review had debunked the claims, here. Obviously Jim is hoping to get on the bottom floor of a new Rathergate type scandal. And I will be the first to admit that this video, showing the user pulling the document apart is creepy:
But the thrust of the National Review’s article is that this is a product of what Adobe does on its own, and not of any human being. I won’t pretend to know who is right in that battle of experts. But I think the way to settle it is to take a real document, feed it into a similar .pdf scanner and then see if the same thing happens, much as years ago Charles Johnson reproduced the Killian memos by taking a copy of Word and just typing it in. If you use the same scanner on a document you know is genuine, run it through, and it still produces the same “layering” effect, then it would prove National Review’s argument that it is not evidence of fakery.
And let me openly suggest that any enterprising person with the right equipment should consider running that experiment. I don’t have the programs and tools needed to do that, but if you can, let me know. Please. Let’s put this to bed.
Still, I will say right now I am very skeptical of the claim that Obama would photoshop a birth certificate, because with any conspiracy, you have to begin by asking how difficult it would be to cover it up. Now, in my personal estimation it would not be as hard as faking a holocaust or a September 11, but still if Obama had forged this birth certificate, he would be gambling on the silence of every single person who might be able to get into those archives and prove him wrong. They can’t all be Democrats and even if they were, I don’t believe most Democrats would go along with fraud. It takes one person and a copying machine to throw a monkey wrench into his plan.
That being said, having gone a few rounds about this, I think I get what made some sense of the position of birthers (or even just people who wanted him to release the certificate already) who just wanted to see the certificate and were capable of being satisfied by it and it might explain why Patrick and I are annoyed to see that 1) it wasn’t actually very difficult to get the certificate, and 2) there was nothing in the documents themselves that justified being this coy. You see, ingrained in most lawyers is a concept called the Best Evidence rule. And despite this being a court rule, I think that the average person will tend to follow its logic, too.
The best evidence rule starts with the notion that the best evidence of the contents of a writing is an original copy of the writing. That applies here in two different ways. First, it means intuitively lawyers do not like using the short form birth certificate because it is not the original birth certificate. It’s not even pretending to be the original. But second, on a metaphorical level, we ask, “what is the best evidence of his eligibility to be president?” The constitution puts only a few bare minimum qualifications on being president. The person must be a naturally born citizen, at least thirty-five years old, and a resident of the U.S. for at least fourteen years of his or her life. And for the first two requirements, it is intuitively obvious that the best evidence of where you were born, and your current age, is your birth certificate.
Now, the law recognizes that sometimes things happen and documents are destroyed or otherwise become unavailable. We are a long way from the day when destruction of a contract meant you lost all rights under that contract. So then we look to other forms of evidence, such as the testimony of witnesses at the time, and similar evidence. For instance, in one case I had a missing contract. So I established by a witness that at the time there was a form contract my client used. I put into evidence an example of that form contract. And then I had my witness testify that the parties signed the contract, without alteration. And that was sufficient to prove 1) that the contract existed and 2) what its terms were. And from then on, for all intents and purposes, that form contract was treated as the contract.
So all birthers were looking for was the best evidence. Which isn’t completely off base. I still think the other evidence was long ago sufficient to establish Obama’s birth in America, but I think many Americans intuitively knew this was not the best evidence, and wondered why they couldn’t just give us that. Why was that so hard?
And there is another wrinkle, too, which explains why the fact it was so easy to get the damn thing offended me so deeply. You see, before you can start presenting that that “second best” evidence, you have to establish that the best evidence is not available. In that case I just mentioned, I had to show I had subpoenaed every person under the sun who might have a copy of the document and obtain their testimony that they looked and couldn’t find it. And only then, when the contract was proven to be truly lost, could I start talking to the witnesses about the form contract.
And obviously Obama skipped that step. For instance, consider this letter. It is written by Judith Corley, a Partner at Perkins Cole, to the Director of Health in Hawaii. Read the whole thing and look at some of the details. For one thing, it was written on April 22 of this year. So in the end it only took them five days to get the thing. And read the language of the letter. This isn’t complex principles of law. It’s all common sense: my client would like to waive all privacy concerns and have a copy of his original long form birth certificate created. They expected us to rely on second best evidence, when the best evidence was available all along. Which is just annoying.
And let’s notice something else. To do this they hired a partner in a law firm. I mean read that letter. There isn’t a word of that you need a J.D. to understand. Any idiot could have written that letter. You didn’t need a lawyer, let alone the partner in a D.C. firm. And please, God, tell me that this person was not retained with taxpayer dollars (although this article suggests she was paid for by the Obama campaign). Now of course the bulk of the writing was probably done by a lower associate at upwards of $100 an hour, with the partner only reviewing it and signing it—at a minimum of $500 an hour, most likely. But still, it’s overkill. And that is after over seventy suits over this issue. I guess we can call it stimulus for the legal community.
So bluntly, I have had a reassessment of where the birthers were coming from. Obviously some might have been driven by the deep desire to avoid a truly terrible president as I have supposed in the past. And while I am sick of the media claiming everyone who thinks Obama is less than the messiah are racists, yeah, maybe a few of them were racists. But I don’t think the majority of them were. And at its core, Obama was refusing to provide the best evidence of his eligibility for office, and now we know he had no legitimate excuse for withholding it. And the ease at which it could have been obtained, only makes it clear that their request to see it was perfectly reasonable, and his refusal to show it was not.
Now maybe those birthers will get unreasonable very quickly and refuse to accept this best evidence on one theory or another. As of yesterday, truthfully, I think their request and their focus on that issue was reasonable as revealed by just how easy it was to obtain the birth certificate. Obama should not have withheld it.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Fake, but accurate?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/28/2011 @ 2:56 pmNote that NR says they did this exact experiment, and found the same effect. And it’s really what one should expect, when you think about it. Resolving a file into elements and eliminating repetitive parts is how you compress it, and that would by definition produce this sort of effect.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/28/2011 @ 3:15 pm“I’m a graphic artist” — oh, well, then, that’s settled. The guy who made this video is obviously an expert. I’m sure any court would admit his expert testimony. Because if it weren’t true, lightning would strike him down.
Beldar (67f528) — 4/28/2011 @ 3:27 pmDonald Trump is racist?
But he agrees with the dems on taxes.
Of course Trump can ask about Mccain’s private life and not be racist.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/28/2011 @ 3:35 pmOh God. All I want is for this to be put to bed.
It seems so ridiculous that someone would try to fake this document. they already had gone years without showing it to us. Why take the risk of forging a document you have gone years without showing us? Donald Trump?
Why not print out the forgery and then scan it?
Wouldn’t that guy who signed the document have had to have seen a physical copy?
It seems like a pretty unlikely conspiracy to me, but this is very strange that the elements move around like that. I don’t see how this would be normal compression techniques. They didn’t enter this into a pdf form filling program. It’s supposed to be a scan from a 1961 document.
If someone modified this file to make it seem like a forgery, I hope they go to prison for it.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 3:42 pmSo if I ask for Joe Biden’s college transcripts am i racist?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/28/2011 @ 3:44 pmGoing to be interesting to see what kind of Adobe/forensic accounting mojo birfers apply to Mitt Romney’s complete financial records. lol…
Big Median (2b1825) — 4/28/2011 @ 3:44 pmI read the NR explanation and it made sense to me. The one thing I don’t understand is if the layering has to do with compression, why are the layers so orderly? They seem to be based on content within an information block rather than on some random action. I don’t even pretend to know anything about photoshop or illustrator, so I’m not trying to suggest that this “expert” is right or wrong. If the original document isn’t generated by computer, how is it that the layering seems to be limited to info within specific blocks, but doesn’t include the lines which construct the blocks?
It seems to me that the explanation from NR doesn’t seem to fit the reality of what’s layered. Can someone help me out?
RefudiateObama2012 (f6c84d) — 4/28/2011 @ 3:47 pmgoing to be interesting when you communists give proof obama is a center-right repub who sold out to israel.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/28/2011 @ 3:47 pmI won’t call it a fake, because I believe at it’s core the document presented by the White House is true. But on the way to releasing it, the White House or the Hawaiian authorities appear to have done a bit of “tweeking” to the document.
First, most of these older documents are held on microfilm in a “negative” format. It appears that somebody decided this would confuse somebody so they re-negated the image to make it a positive again.
Secondly, then somebody added that ridiculous green cross-hatch pattern as a background to make this electronic version of the document look like it had been printed on security paper.
I personally believe the “black” contents of the document is a copy of the information on Obama’s original COLB, but I’m not surprised that some folks are having trouble given the poor graphic arts post-production. Frankly, it looks cheap.
Neo (03e5c2) — 4/28/2011 @ 3:52 pmObama is a sucky president I think
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 4/28/2011 @ 4:00 pmObama is a sucky president I think.
Me too.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/28/2011 @ 4:08 pmHaving scanned documents in Acrobat, OCRed them, and tried to extract the resulting text, I know from my experience that Acrobat does break up the documents into little square chunks (rendering the extracted text useless). I can’t say with confidence that it breaks them up in the way shown in Obama’s birth certificate, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. The safety paper background looks added in to me, but I can’t see anything obviously wrong with the typed/stamped text — unlike the Bush TANG documents.
Socratease (fb57b3) — 4/28/2011 @ 4:08 pmBeldar
that’s a fair point, but if you remember the rathergate thing [we had amateur experts, too] and there is no denying that the layers exist. the dispute is over what they mean.
[fixed after the fact. sorry for muffing that completely. –Aaron]
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 4/28/2011 @ 4:09 pmI think the National Review’s discussion is a little too brash and dismissive, but apart from that mistake, it makes sense. If Adobe was optimizing the document, it makes sense that it would treat something that looks like text, or is text, differently.
NR’s assertion that it’s unlikely the people forging this document would screw up in this fashion rings true, but that’s not relevant to a strict debunking, and I think we need to focus on the facts we have, to really put this to bed.
One aspect alarmed me about the initial claim: that only some digits of the serial number were on their own lawyer (the last two). But if NR’s explanation was correct, it would seem like all the numbers, looking the same and being in the same part of the document, would all be on the same layer.
And as I look at the youtube of the document, it appears that the numbers are all on the same layer after all.
I’m not a graphic artist (cough), so I guess I’ll have to defer to more analysis, but I think NR’s explanation is at least pretty good.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 4:09 pmDustin
well, i myself don’t pretend to know jack about the technical aspects. so i focus on “why would obama think he could get away with it?” as my fallback.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 4/28/2011 @ 4:22 pm…i focus on “why would obama think he could get away with it?” as my fallback.
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 4/28/2011 @ 4:22 pm
If Obama would actually benefit from being able to say, “look, I did release it, let’s end this silliness” and at the same time ensure that people would continue to ask questions about the document, and I imagine Obama has some pretty computer-savvy people in his list of contacts, why wouldn’t he post a document that he knew would immediately receive the Dan Rather treatment?
I personally think we’re being played. I think based on what I see so far (disappearing numbers, the boxes in Illustrator, “African v. Negro in 1961”, and a few other things), they purposely put a few questionable things in there to keep this alive. They want people talking about this to be able to demonize conservatives further.
Busy people with no time to look at details will say, “geez, get a load of the birther nuts.” Whatever he spent $1M-plus to hide (something other than his birthplace, Hawaii) gets to remain hidden. And, he gets credit for releasing it. Another win-win-win for him.
Why else would President Golf-n-Party hold a press conference on this “silliness” but not on gas prices, Afghanistan, the recent Taliban prison break or any number of other serious topics? It doesn’t make sense, unless you assume he wants attention to continue to be paid to it.
no one you know (e7daa1) — 4/28/2011 @ 5:08 pmAaron, I think you’re overlawyering here. I would say that Obama was not required to give the best evidence, only sufficient evidence, and he gave that with the “short form”.
Let me give a hypothetical to illustrate the point:
Suppose Patterico is in court doing his “day job”, and the defendant for some inane reason announces he thinks Patterico shouldn’t be trying him because Patterico is not really a member of the California Bar.
Here in Florida, the Bar issues a little card with the attorney’s bar membership number and name, and of course lists the members’s names and addresses online in a publicly available directory, and I assume California has something similar. Unfortunately, Patterico changed wallets that morning and missed putting his Bar ID card into the new one, so the card is now sitting on his dresser at home.
Now, by your standard, Patterico should be required to rush home and get the ID card, so he could show it in court, before the trial goes on, because that’s the best evidence. But that is not really necessary. All Patterico really needs to do is to point out that the simple fact that he is prosecuting the case is enough evidence, because if he were not a member in good standing of the California Bar, the LA District Attorney wouldn’t let him appear in court as a prosecutor.
That is sufficient evidence.
It’s essentially the same case here: we already have sufficient evidence that he was born in Hawaii, so demanding the best evidence is not really necessary.
My opinion here is partly shaped by one factor that doesn’t seem to be bothering anyone else: that no one has (to the best of my knowledge) ever produced any evidence (beyond one obvious forgery) that even suggests he was born outside the US–and in this case, I think absence of evidence is evidence of absence (because it would be so easy to find evidence if he was born overseas, and there’s more than enough motivation for people to come forward with it, if it really existed).
kishnevi (1b86f1) — 4/28/2011 @ 5:13 pmso why didn’t hawaii send baracky a couple dozen state endorsed hard copies of the long form? why electronic not paper with the state’s endorsement punched into it?
newrouter (e57c5c) — 4/28/2011 @ 5:24 pmIf you composed it in AI and then printed it on readily available safety paper it would look real and have no layers. Any half-assed forger would do this.
Hazy (b69f88) — 4/28/2011 @ 5:44 pmAnd BTW, Aaron, that terrific juxtaposition of headlines by Drudge was funny. IMO not cheap though.
Here’s a video version, for example. Heh.
If more media were more diligent about highlighting the difference between what he says and what he does, people would be so busy cataloguing all the instances that they wouldn’t have time to focus on things like the long-settled question of whether or not he was actually born in Hawaii.
no one you know (e7daa1) — 4/28/2011 @ 5:44 pmI didn’t notice an embossed seal like the short form had though.
Hazy (b69f88) — 4/28/2011 @ 5:46 pmThe way to get Obama out of office is to find a Republican that can get more votes than he can in 2012.
Even if there was 100% for sure Obama was born in the Middle of Red Square in Moscow and that Khrushchev was his father, it would rip this country apart if he was removed from office. There would be urban riots like we have never seen before.
Forget this crap and work toward 2012. Sheesh!
Huey (ddf1a4) — 4/28/2011 @ 5:47 pmYes, Obama more than provided sufficient evidence, but given that there was better evidence, it was reasonable to hope to get to see that.
I mean, let’s not discount your point: there is no evidence Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii. But this is not just about where Obama was born.
So there are two different thoughts here. Was it reasonable to say Obama had failed to prove he was eligible to hold office before his long form was released? I don’t think so. But, given that people were curious about this other document, and that it was easy to produce, and costing a lot to not produce, why not produce it? Well, my guess is that birthers helped Obama politically, but regardless, I’m glad the long form came out just because I think it’s much better evidence than the COLB (which I realize is still more than adequate.
It’s just that I’d like any conspiracy theory that lots of people wonder about to be settled as best as it reasonably can be. You can’t answer all the fringe true believers, but just the easy steps. Like, if they had a video of the plane that hit the pentagon, don’t keep that hidden. Let us see it. I know 9/11 was not an inside job, but it’s not hurting anyone to show us what they have (and they did).
If they had a great video of the grassy knoll in 1963, show us. Even if they don’t really have to.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 5:53 pmStill waiting to hear from Fukino about the “half-typed, half-handwritten discrepancy…
Mek (d63e61) — 4/28/2011 @ 5:54 pmThe country just needs to get past this distraction and on to what’s really important. I bet this whole controversy has cost President Obama at least 3 strokes off of his golf game.
malclave (1db6c5) — 4/28/2011 @ 6:05 pmHang on, it’s not as if the idea of his Kenyan birth came out of nowhere. There was evidence adduced, however thin, to support that story. The sheer implausibility of the idea weighed heavily against it, and I wouldn’t exactly call it a prima facie case, but it was enough to justify demanding that he prove his eligibility, which the “certification” he originally showed to his friends at Kos and Annenberg did not do.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/28/2011 @ 6:06 pmI read a theory somewhere that we’re gettinmg played by Alinsky tactics. Axelrod and the rest know that Obama’s college records should never be revealed because they will not show any evidence of excellent grades and will only prove The One benefitted from affirmative action and is not in fact the complex genius the MSM shoves down our throats.
Any attempt to seek out further Obama documents can easily be dismissed by ridicule, calling attention to just how stupid all those birthers really were. “Can you believe now they’re asking for more documents.”
I don’t think it’s coincidental that the genius meme has intensified:intergrative complexity. It’s now safe to proceed, knowing cover is in place.
PC14 (4a4ed3) — 4/28/2011 @ 6:55 pmDoesn’t federal rule 1001(3) mean that the certificate issued during the campaign meets the best evidence rule? That document was intended by Hawaii to have the effect of an original. Also, rule 1005 says that public records can be proved by copy.
daniel (533ab8) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:09 pmhe recalls own birth
ColonelHaiku (cdd0f9) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:13 pmincredible lightness of
being obama
Chauncey Gardiner
ColonelHaiku (cdd0f9) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:17 pmgot absolutely nothing
on our Dear Leader
The Colonel is back.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:19 pmPerhaps people doubt anything that Obama does simply because his actions don’t match his words. He claims to “have better things to do” than to deal with questions posed by the American people about his birth, but waited two and a half years to address it. Does that mean that until now, he DIDN’T have better things to do? Or is the “better thing to do” flying off to Chicago to appear on his friend, Oprah, show and then off to New York for not one, but three high dollar campaign fund raisers while people are dying because of tornados?
And why a presser after the long form was released? Why did Obama feel it necessary to talk about that, and not hundreds of dead Americans and billions of natural disaster damage?
I’m sorry, but my disgust for this man is so great that I stay depressed. I want a president that says “Cancel my benefits and call Oprah and tell her than hundreds of people have just died in tornados and I have to make sure they are getting the help they need, now and in the immediate future.” Where the hell is the director of FEMA? Like Obama, AWOL.
Remember how Obama slammed Bush for Katrina? Well, he had his chance, early in his administration to show what he was made of. In 2009, violent ice storms swept across the midwest. The new “more competent” Obama administration was a major failure then, just as he is now. It took FEMA two weeks to get supplies to parts of Kentucky. The administrations’s excuse? The roads were too icy to get through. I guess he thought all the roads were left intact after Katrina. Then there was the massive flood that put almost all of Nashville and Memphis under water. Obama’s response to the plight of the people of Tennessee? Pathetic.
Now tornados have been rampaging through the South for a week. People have been losing everything, including their lives and Obama, once again, is AWOL.
His damn birth certificate is the least of our worries, folks. In another two years, this nation will be nothing like it was meant to be. Just ask private companies that are being told they cannot create certain assembly lines at an already existing plant and have to kiss the ass of the NLRB.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:19 pmoh f**k them. let the communist agitators soil their nest. work so well in detroit in ’68. eff them.
newrouter (e57c5c) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:30 pmWon’t YOU PEOPLE ever be satisfied???????
Heh.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:35 pm#28PC14, read this:
“Harvard Law Record
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Obama’s tenure as Law Review President was not without controversy. Indeed, an unusually low number of women were selected to be Review editors from the class of 1992, leading to considerable debate about the Law Review’s selection policies and the importance of its affirmative action program, which at the time, was limited to consideration of race and physical handicap.
Obama personally responded to the controversy by writing a lengthy letter explaining bothe the Review’s selection policy and her personal experience with affirmative action. The letter was published in Volume 91, Number 7 (November 16, 1990) of the Harvard Law Record.”
I will reprint the most important part here:
by Obama
“I’d also like to add one personal note, in response to the letter from Mr. Jim Chen which ws published in the October 26 issue of the RECORD, and which articulated broad objections to the Review’s general affirmative action policy. I respect Mr. Chen’s personal concern over the possible stigmatizing effects of affirmative action, and do not question the depth or sincerity of his feelings. I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized wither within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Reivew.”
Obama admitted to another minority student, and member of the HLR, that he had, in fact, benefited from affirmative action.
The man is a fraud. He is a creation of David Axelrod who designed a myth around a community organizer. A man who had no problems letting Axelrod convince the Chicago Tribune to go to court to force making public the divorce records of Jack Ryan, after the court itself had sealed those records for the sake of the Ryan children, yet doesn’t seem to think that anyone has the right to ask him to prove where he was born.
What a mistake this nation made in November, 2008.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:35 pmSorry for the typos, folks.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:37 pmretire05: even though many of his “people” live in the southern states, he knows the ones with the votes and money are not in his corner. So, to placate them, he is stopping by on his way to Cape Canaveral. How special.
The governor of Alabama today asked for help from him. We’ll see how much he gives. After all he gave millions to the Libyan rebels.
PatAZ (81cf34) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:43 pmPatAZ, my own state of Texas has been suffering from wild fires all across the state. Hundreds of thousands of acres, and dozens of homes, have been lost.
Two weeks ago, Governor Rick Perry wrote to the President to request help with fighting these devastating fires.
As of today, Governor Perry has not heard back.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/28/2011 @ 7:52 pmAs of today, Governor Perry has not heard back.
Comment by retire05 — 4/28/2011 @ 7:52 pm
Well, too bad Texas didn’t go for ME in the last election. /Obama
Not even the courtesy of a reply, much less the badly needed help which is costing many people their homes. Our President is an astoundingly small, petty man.
no one you know (e7daa1) — 4/28/2011 @ 8:09 pmHm, it appears I’m stuck in moderation…was it something I said?
Dana (4eca6e) — 4/28/2011 @ 8:11 pmI know exactly what you mean, retire05.
PatAZ (81cf34) — 4/28/2011 @ 8:24 pm“Hm, it appears I’m stuck in moderation…was it something I said?”
Dana – Ger Aaron a sammich, that’ll help.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/28/2011 @ 8:56 pm#40, it seems that Obama has a slight problem with Texas. When he came to Austin, Governor Perry tried to personally hand him a report on our southern border. Obama refused to take it, instead, motioning for Perry to give it to Valerie Jarret (now, she’s a real piece of work). How long ago was that?
So while Janet Napolitano tells us that our southern borders are safer than ever, an IED was disarmed last Sunday on a highway overpass in Brownsville, Texas. It was the same kind of IED that is being used in Iraq. Any surprise there when Mexico has admitted that Al Qaeda has people in Mexico?
So the states that did not vote for Obama can blow down, blow up or burn up, they should not expect much help from The Won. I guess that is what Obama meant when he said elections have consequences.
Another interesting thing pointed out by Professor Jacobson over at LegalInsurrection: Huffington Post has a thread up where the left is blaming all the tornados in the South on the fact that the South is mostly red states and they vote for Republicans so obviously, those states deserve what they are getting. How sick is that?
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/28/2011 @ 8:56 pmYes, the same compassion that Walcott showed the folks in Florida, in 2004,
narciso (79ddc3) — 4/28/2011 @ 9:01 pmTake a hard look at Obama’s newly released long form birth certificate. Look at the very bottom where it says “Signature of Local Registrar”.
Is that a joke? It looks like “U K La Lee.”
yeah, that’s gotta be real.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/28/2011 @ 9:03 pm==Two weeks ago, Governor Rick Perry wrote to the President to request help with fighting these devastating fires. As of today, Governor Perry has not heard back==
You people just need to chill. The man may be the One but he is not superhuman. He can’t be at your beck and call for everything! He has to prioritize–to perform triage. I mean, he had to track down and show off this birth certificate. Then he had to leave Washington to do the Oprah show and he had to appear at five or six 2012 fundraisers from coast to coast (Cali, Illinois and NYC) just this week alone. And don’t forget the NFL draft show.
elissa (da296f) — 4/28/2011 @ 9:29 pmEddie Griffin wants to Eff Moochelle Obama.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/28/2011 @ 9:41 pmAaron, sometimes there are things you think you want to know until you suddenly know them and regret the fact.
It’s basically too late, now, for the birth certificate thing. I’ll simply ask the question that everybody should sit down and contemplate deeply upon.
Suppose Barack H. Obama were suddenly revealed to be an illegal POTUS. What happens next? I submit this premise is probably suitable fodder for at least a dozen near future history stories. Some will be dismally dystopic as decisions that seemed to be a good idea at the time became nightmares. Some will produce worthwhile results.
I am pretty sure most of the decisions that lead to dystopic futures center on trying to declare that everything Obama has done as POTUS is illegal and then try to back it out.
(I also submit that if a person comes forward with solid iron clad irrefutable proof Obama is not a legal POTUS that person should be summarily executed.)
That said the raw image as viewed and shown on TV is pretty obviously two layers. The copy of my “original” birth certificate from Detroit presented to parents after my birth is a negative image. Somebody else posted such an image for what someone who is an age peer of Obama received from Hawaii, also a negative image.
I had cause to get another copy from Michigan. It looks much like Obama, only it was not obviously copied out of a book with the curl on one edge.
Obama’s certificate is obviously at least two layers, the patterned backdrop form as the first layer with the imaged birth certificate as the second layer. The pattern under the curl does not follow the curl. It remains lined up with the background pattern.
So that explains the way the fellow was able to extract the birth certificate copy layer from the form’s layer so easily. The rest of it seems to be related to peculiarities such as NR noticed on a similar document from the same source.
(About the only GOOD that could come from discovering Mr. Obama is not legally POTUS would be his automatic exclusion from the 2012 election race. If that is the only serious change other than his immediate removal from office with Biden taking over I feel the future would not be as dystopic as if we tried to back out all the Obamaisms rather than going forward from where we are.)
{^_^}
JD (bcdcf2) — 4/28/2011 @ 11:29 pmJD is right. It would be a legal disaster to oust Obama. I’m not going to agree to executing the guy who proves it (thankfully, that can’t happen), but I see where JD’s coming from.
This is why all those birther laws (I’m sure there’s a gentler term for them) are a good idea. I’m glad Obama is eligible, but in the future, lets have some kind of verification of basic eligibility before the election, and rely on that determination as unappealable after the election. Finding that a president wasn’t lawful would cause a huge pile of problems for laws, and I’d rather save the next generation of Americans from this drama.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/28/2011 @ 11:51 pm“… everyone who thinks Obama is less than the messiah are racists…”
Yeah, that Herman Cain, such a racist.
AD-RtR/OS! (685d6b) — 4/28/2011 @ 11:59 pmI couldn’t agree more. But to paraphrase Jon Stewart the other day in his admonition to the media, “YOU have something to do with whether it is ‘put to bed’ or not.”
In other words, as long as you and I and others blog/comment about it, we can’t really complain about the fact that this issue won’t die.
You keep asking the wrong question. It was NEVER hard. And obviously, in actuality, it WASN’T hard. But “difficulty” was never an issue. Necessity was.
Obama didn’t respond to birther’s demands for the same reason that Bush never jumped through hoops to appease Code Pink — he doesn’t HAVE to kowtow to the fringe on every fringe subject. It’s that simple.
What you call “second best evidence” is, no matter how you spin it, legally sufficient evidence. He produced the documentation legally recognized — by EVERY GOVERNMENTAL BODY at every level (local, state, federal) — to be ironclad proof of birth, in Hawaii, in 1961.
It’s like saying — “No, your driver’s license isn’t good enough proof. I want to see the results of your written driver’s test on file with the state. That’s the ‘best evidence’ that you can legally drive this car.”
To which I say, “Bullsh*t”.
*Rolls eyes*
They hired a law firm, and a partner handled it. Well, what would you expect? How often does a lawyer get to handle a matter for the President of the United States? Of COURSE a partner is going to snatch up that duty.
And I doubt an associate wrote a first draft. Associates tend to do routine stuff. Given the client, this is not “routine”.
Of course you do. It’s amazing who you’ll get in bed with (or get NEAR bed with) in order to feed your Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Let me ask you something hypothetically. If 9/11 Truthers were demanding some piece of evidence which they thought was relevant — say, Air Force flight logs — and it would have been “relatively easy” for Bush to issue an order to release those documents, do you think he SHOULD have done so? In other words, do you think, as a matter of policy, the President of the United States should give in to conspiracy theorists demands where it is “easy” for him to do so?
Kman (5576bf) — 4/29/2011 @ 6:41 am“I’m glad Obama is eligible, but in the future, lets have some kind of verification of basic eligibility before the election, and rely on that determination as unappealable after the election.”
There have been people excluded / removed from ballots for ineligibility. I’m not sure a law is needed. I also think that following an election, judicial reversal would be impossible — courts will find it non-justiciable under the political question doctrine.
daniel (3fd7c8) — 4/29/2011 @ 6:52 amKman–100%-Agree
carlitos (4bd6b1) — 4/29/2011 @ 7:00 amThat’s how Obama got his start in politics, he ran unopposed in his first race, by disqualifying the petition signatures of all his opponents,
Perkins and Coie, has a certain history, directing
narciso (79ddc3) — 4/29/2011 @ 7:06 amthe recounts that put Franken over the top, with
a few hundred excon votes, being the major player
in the ethic complaints brouhaha, farther north,
defending a Gitmo detainee, who thankfully has not been freed.
Kman
> In other words, as long as you and I and others blog/comment about it, we can’t really complain about the fact that this issue won’t die.
It is so revealing that you think the way to put an issue to rest is to willfully ignore it rather than adequately address it.
> Necessity was.
A fair enough point and my words were inartful.
So when it was necessary to save his flagging poll numbers he released it.
When it was necessary to possibly prevent a soldier from disobeying orders and being court marshaled…? not so much.
> Well, what would you expect?
The president is a lawyer. He doesn’t need a lawyer. He needs an intern who can write reasonably.
> Associates tend to do routine stuff.
I am basing that on experience. But if you want to argue that I was treated better than most associates, have at it.
> Obama Derangement Syndrome.
You’re projecting. Because you have irrational love of the man, you presume my dislike of him is equally irrational.
> If 9/11 Truthers were demanding some piece of evidence which they thought was relevant — say, Air Force flight logs — and it would have been “relatively easy” for Bush to issue an order to release those documents, do you think he SHOULD have done so?
My inclination is yes. Unless there was some national security concern in revealing protocols.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/29/2011 @ 7:28 amAaron, again I ask; take a look at the b.c. again. Read the signature on the very bottom line where it says “Signature of Local Registrar”.
U K La Lee?
You have got to be kidding me. Why is no one saying anything about that? Either it is a joke, or someone had very cruel parents.
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/29/2011 @ 7:38 am“The president is a lawyer. He doesn’t need a lawyer. He needs an intern who can write reasonably.”
This is a joke, right? You’ve never heard of lawyers having lawyers?
daniel (b79151) — 4/29/2011 @ 7:39 amKman
Btw, it is more than a little hypocritical of you to complain that i am giving the issue too much attention, given that at your blog you have written four different posts on the subject since the release of the long form–one more than i have.
daniel
yes, i have. but like i said in the post this is not a complex issue. that’s what lawyers hire other lawyers to do for them–complex crap.
there isn’t a thing in that letter that couldn’t have been written by a lay person.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/29/2011 @ 7:45 amAaron-preey-weak–(bberry-torch-hates-patterico.om-itsaconspiracytosilencecarlito!!!!!!11!1!11!!eleventy)
carlitos (212289) — 4/29/2011 @ 7:45 amReally? So when liberals were clamoring for Bush’s National Guard attendance records, and were accusing him of being AWOL and not fulfilling all the Texas Air National Guard requirements, you believe President Bush should have picked up the phone and made sure all those records were produced?
Because you didn’t at the time. Just sayin’.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/29/2011 @ 7:49 amI’m ADMITTING that I’m part of the problem. So, I’m not being hypocritical at all.
Kman (5576bf) — 4/29/2011 @ 7:50 amhttp://archives.starbulletin.com/content/20091228_third_grade_photo_captures_obamas_grin
narciso (79ddc3) — 4/29/2011 @ 7:57 amKman @62
Actually, to be fair you are right on that point. my apologies.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/29/2011 @ 7:57 amIn other words, as long as you and I and others blog/comment about it, we can’t really complain about the fact that this issue won’t die.
Shorter kmart – SHUT UP!
How about we try this. We will all quit voicing our opinions. But you have to be the first to quit. A game of mouse, if you will. GO.
JD (0d01eb) — 4/29/2011 @ 7:59 am“yes, i have. but like i said in the post this is not a complex issue. that’s what lawyers hire other lawyers to do for them–complex crap.”
Or crap they don’t want to do themselves because, you know, they’ve got better things to do, like their own jobs. Or hell their own leisure!
You’re a lawyer right? You know better than to think that the final work product you see reflects all that was required of the lawyers in a particular matter.
daniel (771c3a) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:05 amdaniel
> Or crap they don’t want to do themselves
Facepalm. read what i wrote that you’re objecting to again.
> The president is a lawyer. He doesn’t need a lawyer. He needs an intern who can write reasonably.
moving on
> You know better than to think that the final work product you see reflects all that was required of the lawyers in a particular matter.
Well, then i guess it is a good thing i didn’t criticize any of the other work that might or might not have been done.
The letter itself required no legal research or any legal skills whatsoever to write. Its overkill. The idea of waiving the rules is a basic and obvious method of getting around problematic rules like this that requires zero research.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:19 amWe all need to get back to the fierce urgency of watching Obama’s dithering decision making and pretend he has not made a habit of hiding information about his past. Doing otherwise is just plain racist.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:22 amthe biggest birth certificate fallout I think is that the NPR ABC Newsweek media has done tipped their hand that they’ll maintain Trump’s viability come hell or high water cause a third party run by him is the best insurance policy Daddy Soros’ little boy can buy
happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:24 amdaley
ace has a very funny post catching matthews refuting himself in the racism charge.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:28 amJust remember that comment about the dangers of a third party run, Mr. Feet. Same thing with sitting out an election.
Axelrod and his cronies are counting on it.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:29 am“The letter itself required no legal research or any legal skills whatsoever to write.”
No shit. But what about deciding that all that was required was a letter? You hire a lawyer to handle a matter, including figuring out how to handle it, such as whether the necessary resolution is a mere letter. Even having an intern, you still need to supervise them and make sure they’ve done things right. Or you’re doing a real bad job. The hiring of a lawyer is precisely to avoid having to do that work.
Note he also was using a private lawyer for this — I think OFA/campaign cash paid for this. So there’s also the benefit that we know it’s being done privately, limiting how much of the president’s public time is taken by this.
I think it’s a plus that dude wasn’t a cheapskate about this. Imagine if there was a mess up? There’s already people whining about this release what with the layers and what not. You hire a lawyer to make sure that that doesn’t happen, and that you don’t have to be the one that makes sure.
daniel (6fa251) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:32 amoh dear this hoochie is too dumb to make a sammich much less much less direct legislations I think
happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:34 am“The letter itself required no legal research or any legal skills whatsoever to write.”
No shit. But what about deciding that all that was required was a letter? You hire a lawyer to handle a matter, including figuring out how to handle it, such as whether the necessary resolution is a mere letter. Even having an intern, you still need to supervise them and make sure they’ve done things right. Or you’re doing a real bad job. The hiring of a lawyer is precisely to avoid having to do that work.
Note he also was using a private lawyer for this — I think OFA/campaign cash paid for this. So there’s also the benefit that we know it’s being done privately, limiting how much of the president’s public time is taken by this.
It’s a plus that dude wasn’t a cheapskate about this. What if there was a mess up? There’s already people whining about this release what with the layers and what not. You hire a lawyer to make sure that that doesn’t happen, and that you don’t have to be the one that makes sure.
“Well, then i guess it is a good thing i didn’t criticize any of the other work that might or might not have been done.”
Do you do legal research and then let your clients have their interns draft letters which you don’t ok? That might work for how you handle matters, but I’m ok with the president not handling the birther issue this way.
daniel (a1e089) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:36 amYes we are being played, and this certainly gives
us, the fall of the Republic, flavor:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/139629/20110429/trump-donald-obama-las-vegas.htm#
narciso (79ddc3) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:36 am“The letter itself required no legal research or any legal skills whatsoever to write.”
No shit. But what about deciding that all that was required was a letter? You hire a lawyer to handle a matter, including figuring out how to handle it, such as whether the necessary resolution is a mere letter. Even having an intern, you still need to supervise them and make sure they’ve done things right. Or you’re doing a real bad job. The hiring of a lawyer is precisely to avoid having to do that work.
Note he also was using a private lawyer for this — I think OFA/campaign cash paid for this. So there’s also the benefit that we know it’s being done privately, limiting how much of the president’s public time is taken by this.
It’s a plus that dude wasn’t a cheapskate about this. What if there was a mess up? There’s already people whining about this release what with the layers and what not. You hire a lawyer to make sure that that doesn’t happen, and that you don’t have to be the one that makes sure.
“Well, then i guess it is a good thing i didn’t criticize any of the other work that might or might not have been done.”
Do you do legal research and then let your clients have their interns draft letters which they send on their own? That might work for how you handle matters, but I’m ok with the president not handling the birther issue this way.
daniel (3a0f11) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:37 am“ace has a very funny post catching matthews refuting himself in the racism charge.”
A.W. – I know. There is a lot of dumbness out there on the racisms today. Tavis Smiley has already declared 2012 the most racist campaign EVAH!, which means he thinks Obama is in danger of losing. Whoopi Goldberg publicly declared she is playing the race card. Fun times, fun times.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:37 amHappyfeet is extraordiarily prescient when it comes to the MBM’s desire to ensure that clown Trump’s viability as a candidate, as an insurance policy on Obama’s successful re-election (God help us all)
Oh, and he’s pretty knowledgable about cupcakes as well 🙂
Bob Reed (5f2db5) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:38 amthank you Mr. Bob
happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:39 amA.W. – There was also a post over a Big Government yesterday indicating every president since JFK has disclosed his college grades.
If true, another special pleading for Obama?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:39 am“The letter itself required no legal research or any legal skills whatsoever to write.”
Sure. But what about deciding that all that was required was a letter? You hire a lawyer to handle a matter, including figuring out how to handle it, such as whether the necessary resolution is a mere letter. Even having an intern, you still need to supervise them and make sure they’ve done things right. The hiring of a lawyer is precisely to avoid having to do that work.
Note he also was using a private lawyer for this — I think OFA/campaign cash paid for this. So there’s also the benefit that we know it’s being done privately, limiting how much of the president’s public time is taken by this.
It’s a plus that dude wasn’t a cheapskate about this. What if there was a mess up? There’s already people whining about this release what with the layers and what not. You hire a lawyer to make sure that that doesn’t happen, and that you don’t have to be the one that makes sure.
“Well, then i guess it is a good thing i didn’t criticize any of the other work that might or might not have been done.”
Do you do legal research and then let your clients have their interns draft letters which they send on their own? That might work for how you handle matters, but I feel a little more reassured that the the president did not handle the birther issue this way.
daniel (d76562) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:40 am. Then he had to leave Washington to do the Oprah show and he had to appear at five or six 2012 fundraisers from coast to coast (Cali, Illinois and NYC) just this week alone.
kishnevi (cc1ec4) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:41 amActually, today’s schedule is something like:
–sightsee Alabama storm damage
–sightsee space shuttle launch
–(if I heard correctly on the news)attend fundraiser in Miami
Very well said, JD. The whole comment. (Ok, except the summary-execution-of-investigators part.)
Even if he weren’t eligible (though I think he is) it’s much too late to undo all the Obama executive orders etc. this president has inflicted on us.
If we’re so fortunate as to repeal or defund Obamacare that would be wonderful. Even that might be better than we can hope for.
no one you know (325a59) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:42 am“Then he had to leave Washington to do the Oprah show and he had to appear at five or six 2012 fundraisers from coast to coast (Cali, Illinois and NYC) just this week alone.
Actually, today’s schedule is something like:
–sightsee Alabama storm damage
–sightsee space shuttle launch
–(if I heard correctly on the news)attend fundraiser in Miami”
All more important than kowtowing to Trump’s birther freakouts.
daniel (1a5ab7) — 4/29/2011 @ 8:51 amdaniel – Taking Air Force 1 to Chicago to tape Oprah was HUGE and in no way silliness. I’m sure the Queen Mum would have done the same thing.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:02 amHow is it that Trump is held out to be a Republican?
JD (0d01eb) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:04 amMeh. Looks to me like some idiot tried to dress up the scan, pasting it onto an ‘official’ looking background, missed a couple pieces and pasted those in and generally did a bad job of it. Should have just left it alone. I imagine the person who made the decision to do that is regretting it.
You know what would be fun? Ask for his baby footprints to compare to his prints now. Where’s the footprints!!
starboardhelm (e93080) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:07 amOh — and Obama should have produced his birth certificate on April 1. If only he had the balls.
starboardhelm (e93080) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:09 am83- how too is nurse Bloomberg? Will media push for Bloomberg as GOP standard bearer? Lots of conservatives I know buy into the media nastiness about Palin.
Calypso Louie Farrakhan (d36a3f) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:10 am“Will media push for Bloomberg as GOP standard bearer?”
Louie – Hah! The media may push for it just like they pushed for McCain as their favorite conservative in 2008. Bloomberg is an azzhat.
Never trust the motives of the liberal media.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:28 amWhether he should have or not, the fact is that he did.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:29 amAgreed. She can’t even read, or she’d know that what the 0 showed two years ago was not a “certificate of live birth”, and that this one is. (It’s amazing to me how many people I had thought literate have been making that mistake.)
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:35 amAnyone want to address the U K Le Lee signature? Or do you just intend to ignore it thinking it really is not there?
retire05 (2d538e) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:44 amPresumably it’s the genuine signature of whoever had that job at that time. I haven’t seen the person identified, but Lee is a common name, both among English and Chinese, two ethnicities that are common in Hawaii.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:50 amThere was a good Blogging Heads TV debate between John McWhorter and Glenn Loury on this subject yesterday.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:53 amIsn’t uK le Lee what Yelverton teaches?
JD (0d01eb) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:53 amDaniel
> But what about deciding that all that was required was a letter?
I didn’t criticize him for any bills in DECIDING TO WRITE A LETTER. I criticized him for any bills in actually writing it.
> Even having an intern, you still need to supervise them and make sure they’ve done things right. Or you’re doing a real bad job.
As in you tell your subordinates to make the draft the best thing possible you look it over once and be done with it. seriously, this is not rocket science. And it certainly isn’t anything you need to go to law school to figure out.
> I think OFA/campaign cash paid for this.
Yes, it damn well better not be my money paying for it.
> I think it’s a plus that dude wasn’t a cheapskate about this.
Sure, who cares if he wastes money. Its stimulus!
> Imagine if there was a mess up?
Sure, imagine if I was shooting fish in a barrel, with a shotgun, and missed? *rolls eyes* Even the obama administration is not stupid enough to screw this up.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/29/2011 @ 10:16 am“Imagine if there was a mess up?”
He’s already messed it up for three years. What more could he do?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/29/2011 @ 10:26 am“I didn’t criticize him for any bills in DECIDING TO WRITE A LETTER. I criticized him for any bills in actually writing it.”
I’m not saying that doing legal research and then writing the letter is the only way to practice law, just that it’s a reasonable one. As I said above, maybe you do legal research and then let your client have interns draft letters and send them out on their own. But there’s other ways people choose to handle matters, specially if they have private money and feel they have better things to do, like hang out with their friends or go on TV.
“Even the obama administration is not stupid enough to screw this up.”
And the way to do that without public money is to hire a private lawyer with private money to handle it.
“He’s already messed it up for three years.”
The accounts are that he really didn’t do anything on this. I’m not seeing what the messup was. He released a certificate back during the campaign and that should be enough.
What do you think of my argument that what he had released during the campaign satisfied the best evidence rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence?
daniel (84ca1e) — 4/29/2011 @ 10:37 amThe 2008 document did not satisfy the Best Evidence rule because documentation of births in Hawaii at that time was notoriously lax – see Chiang Kai-Shek and Sun Yat-Sen who both were able to acquire Hawaii certifications of live birth by having relatives in Hawaii vouch for their home births there.
Obama is also known to be the subject of an adoption, which can amend his birth records such that a computer generated Certification of Live Birth could well have different critical (but legal) information on it than his original long form.
Now that there is a long form with an attending physician and a hospital and such things on it that can be checked via secondary sources, we have much much more validity than if, say, we had a long form that said, “the grandparents sign an affadavit as to his birth at home.”
This is clearly the Best Evidence.
luagha (5cbe06) — 4/29/2011 @ 11:01 amLuagha, exactly; the 2008 “certification” proved nothing at all. Given how easy it is to provide false information in a birth filing, there is simply no reason ever to trust one just because it exists; one must first know the source of the information, and then assess how reliable that source is.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 11:10 am“The 2008 document did not satisfy the Best Evidence rule because documentation of births in Hawaii at that time was notoriously lax ”
I think you’re making a common misunderstanding of the best evidence rule. It’s not a rule as to what a writing purports to show. It’s about what is the content of the writing. If two people are arguing over a piece of a contract, and one of the terms is “the sky is orange” then the best evidence is the actual contract. The best evidence rule doesn’t require the original to prove that the sky is in fact orange. Just to prove that the contract actually said “the sky is orange.”
So to prove that the content of Hawaii records record Obama’s birth, the best evidence rule states you need an original. And according to rule 1001(3) the certificate released during the campaign is an original, because it was intended to have the same effect. Further, rule 1005 says that public records can be proved by copy.
It’s not about what is the best evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, since it’s got the doctor’s signature, etc… on it.
daniel (84ca1e) — 4/29/2011 @ 11:16 am“What do you think of my argument that what he had released during the campaign satisfied the best evidence rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence?”
daniel – I think it is crap. What do you make of Captain Transparency’s pattern of disclosing as little as possible information about himself until backed into a corner?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/29/2011 @ 11:18 amDaniel, the certification (not certificate) issued in 2008 does not even purport to be a copy; it’s an abstract.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 11:20 amIn any case, Daniel has brought up an important point: what is it that needs proof? That he was born in Hawaii, or merely that Hawaii has a record claiming that he was born there? The constitution says he has to have been born there, not just that a state must have a record saying so.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 11:23 amThe registrar who signed Obama’s BC also signed this one, it appears to be legit. I think the name looks more like Vicky Lee, but who knows.
http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u358/zczc3185/Birth_cert_coats_7c.jpg
mbs (609a39) — 4/29/2011 @ 11:24 am“Daniel, the certification (not certificate) issued in 2008 does not even purport to be a copy; it’s an abstract.”
Indeed it is. It also says it is prima facie evidence etc… on it. It’s intended to have the same effect as the original, which is what rule 1001(3) requires.
Note that this one also says “certification” and both have a “certificate” number. Not sure what the complaint there is.
Think about it, why would Hawaii be regularly issuing documents that don’t satisfy the rules of evidence?
daniel (280b35) — 4/29/2011 @ 11:32 amComment by Milhouse — 4/29/2011 @ 11:23 am
That’s pilpul, Milhouse.
Or, more practically, how, absent the birth certificate, would he prove it? I was born two years before him. My mother’s doctor passed away years ago; the resident who actually delivered me is, if still alive, not traceable (my mother never knew his name); the nurses anonymous, and there’s nothing about my birth that would make them remember it five decades later, if they were still alive and traceable, and thanks to Alzheimer’s, my mother can contribute nothing to the subject. I have no idea of what records might be in the hospital archives from 1959. That leaves my father as the only person with firsthand knowledge of the circumstances of my birth–which is one more witness than Obama has available to him, and he would not be a disinterested witness. So, state record aside, I would have a very hard time establishing when and where I was born.
kishnevi (46fd97) — 4/29/2011 @ 11:47 amSo what evidence would you want?
Daniel
> I’m not saying that doing legal research and then writing the letter is the only way to practice law, just that it’s a reasonable one.
No, Daniel, it’s a waste of resources. I would never write such a simple letter for a client, or if I did, I would take a pay cut down to a secretary’s pay for the time to do it. It is unethical to charge an unreasonable fee for services, and that can get you in trouble with the bar. See, e.g., here: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2008/8a07ag.pdf
> And the way to do that without public money is to hire a private lawyer with private money to handle it.
Or a private secretary. Or an unpaid intern. Or just take 15 minutes and do it yourself. Or ask the wife to do it. no matter how you slice it, its overkill.
Well, too be fair, if he asked Michele to write something for him she might hulk out and smash him.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:02 pmI’ve already given a reason why, assuming the certificate he released this week is authenticated, it’s likely to be telling the truth. Had his grandparents wanted to fake it they had no need to rope in anyone from the hospital; sure, they could have bribed someone at the hospital, or the doctor, but why should they? The obvious thing to do would have been to file it as a home birth. So the certificate is good evidence, where the certification was not.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:07 pm“Daniel” seems to enjoy flogging a dead horse.
JD (306f5d) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:08 pmI don’t give a damn what effect it’s “intended” to have, it doesn’t have that effect, because it doesn’t prove anything except that the record exists. Claiming that it proves something it doesn’t is just calling a tail a leg.
Where?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:12 pmWell, we have to be practical milhouse.
The law has the imperfection of having to be practically functional somehow. They can’t do a DNA test on all inmates every day to ensure they are the correct inmates, via habeus corpus, because all they had was a piece of paper saying they were the correct inmates yesterday.
That’s why we have to establish who, exactly, decides the fact, and then rely on that fact finder unless we have evidence we can use to appeal against them. That’s not perfect, but it’s the best we can do.
In this case, the fact is where Obama was born, and the fact finder is the State of Hawaii, and they did their best to look into it and certify Obama was born there with that COLB. Is that the end of the story? I think it should be, unless someone can appeal this with evidence.
Is that perfect? Or literally satisfying the birth question absolutely?
Of course not. This is a legal system, and we should only do the best we can with it.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:16 pm“no matter how you slice it, its overkill.”
Says who? There’s been discussions and erroneous conclusions forever over whether this could be released. Not at all overkill that a partner sign a letter at the end of the process. As you can read from the other letter, written by Obama, he obviously anticipated there might be more issues, and thus delegated these tasks to his lawyer. It’s definitely not overkill to follow the instructions of your client.
But I would be uncomfortable with an administration intern, even unpaid, doing this. I know it’s not public money, but still, it’s something better handled by the private side of the president, not the administration side.
What about my best evidence argument?
“I don’t give a damn what effect it’s “intended” to have”
But the best evidence rule does.
“Where?”
Sorry. I got confused with a different argument, I had read someone say this was still a “COLB” which, technically true, does not capture the difference in the “C” part.
daniel (df0dab) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:23 pm“no matter how you slice it, its overkill.”
There’s been discussions and erroneous conclusions forever over whether this could be released. Not at all overkill that a partner sign a letter at the end of the process. As you can read from the other letter, written by Obama, he obviously anticipated there might be more issues, and thus delegated these tasks to his lawyer. It’s definitely not overkill to follow the instructions of your client.
But I would be uncomfortable with an administration intern, even unpaid, doing this. I know it’s not public money, but still, it’s something better handled by the private side of the president, not the administration side.
What about my best evidence argument?
“I don’t give a damn what effect it’s “intended” to have”
But the best evidence rule does. That’s what matters.
“Where?”
Sorry. I got confused with a different argument, I had read someone say this was still a “COLB” which, technically true, does not capture the difference in the “C” part.
daniel (d76562) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:25 pmdaniel
the fact is you are a bitter ender on this. but you are wrong. its overkill.
you didn’t even need a lawyer on that letter.
and you harm your credibility when you say that.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:29 pmWhat do my observations on the best evidence rule do to my credibility?
daniel (84ca1e) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:39 pmHowever there’s a strong reason to believe that the inmates who were there yesterday are the same ones who are there today, because they’ve been under guard the whole time. And they were put there after a careful examination of evidence that they actually committed a crime, not just that there existed a piece of paper that said they did.
Except that they didn’t. No state does. Anyone can file a home birth, and the state takes their word for it, because why shouldn’t it? Even at the hospital, much of the information comes from the parents, and the hospital makes no effort to validate it. For instance, even the new certificate would be worthless for the purpose of proving that Barack and Stanley actually lived at the address given, or that Barack was a student and Stanley without an occupation, or even that Barack was the father in the first place. Because for all of those things the hospital just asked Stanley, and the state did nothing to look into it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:53 pmAaron, apparently he needed a special waiver to get it released. Which means someone had to research 1)whether a waiver was needed 2)whether a waiver,if needed, was possible and 3)who could issue the waiver–all of them being legal issues, until you get to the final step of identifying the person currently holding whatever position it was that could issue the waiver.
In other words, some legal research, and therefore a lawyer, was involved. Did a name partner in the firm need to be involved? Of course not–a paralegal would be the real person to do it–but as someone noted earlier in this thread, do you think any partner in any law firm in this country would let that letter go out over the name of an associate or a paralegal?
kishnevi (46fd97) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:54 pmWe’ve got to be careful with our terminology. For instance, the document I have which attests to my birth is not in fact a “Certificate of Birth”, but a “Certificate of Birth Registration“, which incorporates within it a (white on black) copy of my “Certificate of Birth”. That is, there is an actual birth certificate on file with the state, but rather than merely send my mother a true copy of it, as Hawaii just sent the President, they sent her a separate certificate which attests, not directly to the fact of my birth, but to the fact that my birth had been registered; and to prove it it incorporates a copy of the actual birth certificate. That’s terminological exactitude for you.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:58 pmYes, you’re right. We should try to find the best, most reasonable evidence we can.
I’m sorry, are you saying that Hawaii didn’t certify that Obama was born there? I grant you have a point that this certification is far from absolute, but it’s the best we’ve got. If someone sneaks a Mexican baby into Texas and gets a birth certificate, and 40 years later Texas certifies they were born at home, that is indeed a big problem. You’re not getting an argument from me that this system isn’t perfect.
Though I add that Obama was born in a hospital, whose doctor signed a form in 1961. Hawaii relied on that signature when they issued the COLB, even if they didn’t show us that signature at the time.
Like a warden taking over a prison full of inmates, assuming those on his records are who he’s told they are, Hawaii did they best they could with the evidence they had.
In all practicality, this is the best we can do. I honestly do not want the state to investigate the claims to new mothers all across the land, so just recording a document near the time of birth, with their claims and signatures, is good enough.
Those signatures from mothers are their word of honor. You’re not really ever able to get beyond someone’s oath.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/29/2011 @ 12:59 pmI don’t believe that, for two reasons: 1) The law itself, which was linked here in the earlier discussion, explicitly says a person can get either an abstract or a true copy. 2) The certification signed by the registrar is in the form of a stamp that says this is “an abstract or true copy”. The fact that the registrar had such a stamp made up proves that he makes the same certification many times. If he only ever issued abstracts, and not true copies, then why make a stamp that says it’s one or the other?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:02 pmNo, I’m saying that Hawaii didn’t do “their best to look into it”, and in fact did nothing at all to look into it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:04 pmActually, if there is some better way to certify the word of moms and dads when they claim their baby was just born somewhere, I have no problem with that being the new practice. I just insist we not be too intrusive.
At some point, we just have to trust that the people who wrote out this document, or made promises about the data on it, were honest. We have to establish who gets to certify that Obama or whoever satisfies the 14th amendment, being born inside the USA, and Hawaii absolutely did say that he was. No matter what someone wants to nitpick about this or that form, Hawaii repeatedly claimed Obama was born Hawaii.
Because it would be so disastrous to find that a president’s body of work was not legal, I think we should formalize this process before someone appears on a ballot, and then it simply should not be possible to appeal that decision after the election.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:05 pmWell, no. There’s the actual birth certificate, for instance, which has now, finally, been released (assuming it’s genuine, of course).
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:05 pmThe governor of the state remembers Obama’s birth.
They had this certificate on file, from 1961, with signatures of professionals saying he was born there.
That’s great! What do you want, exactly.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:06 pmDaniel
the only thing i find is a comment about the federal rules of evidence, and i fail to see how you have even applied it to this situation.
and given your bitter ender tendencies, i am not even particularly interested in having that discussion. it sounds like a collossal waste of my time.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:06 pmNor do I. I just want us to be clear on that, and not to pretend 40 years later that it’s worth more than just their claims, which are no more likely to be true than false.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:07 pm?
What?
You’re not being logically consistent. You are milhouse, not Hawaii. Hawaii already had that document for the past half century. If you claim that’s good enough, then you grant Hawaii’s investigation, which relied on this document, was good enough.
In fact, as far as I know, looking at this document is the best Hawaii could do before responding that Obama was born in Hawaii.
You’re flipping from whether Hawaii was well informed to certify Obama’s birth to whether you or I was well informed.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:08 pmDustin, you seem to be under the impression that there was no evidence against the claim of a Hawaiian birth. Surely you saw the evidence, such as it was, that was circulating in 2008. Now that evidence was very thin, and the case it made was inherently implausible, but it was something, and that alone should have required a true copy of the actual certificate to rebut it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:10 pmI’m saying that nobody should have had to take Hawaii’s word for it, without knowing the basis on which Hawaii claimed to know it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:11 pmI guess I actually disagree that their claims are no more likely to be true than false, Milhouse. I think someone’s signature, or their oath, should be assumed to be the truth. Not absolutely, but likely.
Maybe this is where we differ.
But consider what kind of burden of proof we should have for something like an eligibility requirement. I think preponderance. Do you think beyond doubt?
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:11 pmJust to be clear, I’m saying that the public, and the 50 secretaries of state (including Hawaii’s), and the 538 electors, should have had better evidence of Obama’s eligibility than the certification, which amounts to Hawaii’s registrar saying that a record exists without giving us any basis on which to decide whether we should trust that record. A true copy of the actual certificate should have been released then, which would have led almost everybody except the Berg/Taitz fanatics to conclude that there was no real issue.
At the very least there should have been an official statement from the registrar setting forth all the facts, namely that the filing was made on that date, by that hospital, and signed by that doctor. But really we shouldn’t have had to take the registrar’s word when it was possible to provide the evidence itself.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:19 pm“the only thing i find is a comment about the federal rules of evidence, and i fail to see how you have even applied it to this situation.”
I have 3 comments that discuss rule 1001(3)’s applicability to the certification of live birth issued years ago.
I also think you’re leading folks astray when you talk about the best evidence rule this way:
“But second, on a metaphorical level, we ask, “what is the best evidence of his eligibility to be president?””
That’s not what the best evidence rule is about. It’s about the contents of documents.
“it sounds like a collossal waste of my time.”
You spent a lot of time talking about what you thought the best evidence rule was. Did you take the time to look it up?
daniel (be9572) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:19 pm“Aaron, apparently he needed a special waiver to get it released.”
kishnevi – That is what they say. The law surrounding the release of such documentation which Newtons.Bit posted a couple of days ago indicated no such waiver was required.
Several Hawaiian legislators have introduced bills to prevent the release of long form information. Has one of them passed? Was Newtons.Bit in error? Would Hawaii seriously preclude its citizens from proving at what hospitals they were born or what doctors delivered them?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:23 pmComment by Milhouse — 4/29/2011 @ 1:10 pm
What was the evidence? I recall seeing nothing that seemed like evidence to me. Or more exactly, if all it produced was a case that was (to use your phrase) inherently implausible, then it’s not really evidence at all.
kishnevi (4fe729) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:24 pmBut I have, in honesty, forgotten even what that implausible evidence was. Could you summarize or point to a link with it?
Daniel
> That’s not what the best evidence rule is about. It’s about the contents of documents.
Which is why I used that word “metaphorical.”
See what i mean about it being a waste of time talking to you?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:27 pmI couldn’t be bothered looking for it, since you can find it just as easily as I can. There were various purported statements from his family, including his grandmother; I think there was a newspaper article from Kenya; and I’m pretty sure there were a few other items equally unimpressive. It was all very thin gruel, and I was not at all convinced by it. But it was something, and I expected a birth certificate to be produced to rebut it. When none was forthcoming, and instead they tried to fob us off with that “certification”, my curiosity was piqued. I was still inclined to believe that he was probably born in Hawaii, or at least somewhere in the USA, but I couldn’t be sure; and Tim McGuire came up with a perfectly plausible, though completely speculative, theory of a Canadian birth.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:30 pm“Daniel” is nothing if not predictable.
JD (29e1cd) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:31 pm“Which is why I used that word “metaphorical.””
Ah, so your metaphor is the classic mistaken understanding of the best evidence rule that any evidence textbook would warn about.
And to top it off, you use it to attack a document that apparently meets the non-metaphorical, actual, best evidence rule!
daniel (6fa251) — 4/29/2011 @ 1:32 pmThat’s not how the best evidence rule works. Per FRE 1001:
Read the bottom of any Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth, and it is deemed to have the same legal effect as the original certificate (and it would have to, otherwise there would be no original certificates to verify the information against).
Short version: Obama produced the best evidence in 2008. He then produced what was, for legal purposes, the same thing three years after a bunch of raving lunatics kept howling at the door.
Lawyer Joe (38e215) — 4/29/2011 @ 5:05 pmPeople named joe are inevitably douchenozzles. There is a theme.
Think Progress (2da347) — 4/29/2011 @ 5:12 pm“Tim McGuire came up with a perfectly plausible, though completely speculative, theory of a Canadian birth.”
Milhouse – If we’re thinking of the same blogger, you’re driving me nuts getting his name consistently wrong. Try Tom Maguire if you are referring to Just One Minute.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/29/2011 @ 5:24 pmLawyer Joe, there is actually a better argument about the applicability of the “best evidence” rule. That you don’t know it makes me question whether or not you are a lawyer.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/29/2011 @ 5:38 pmWow you must really think little of Aaron being a lawyer for getting it completely wrong. Let us all hear your better argument rule.
daniel (347e83) — 4/29/2011 @ 6:07 pmdaniel, Aaron made it clear earlier in the thread that he understands the rule better than “Lawyer Joe”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/29/2011 @ 6:11 pmWe’re still not seeing your argument. Is it based on the federal rules?
daniel (84ca1e) — 4/29/2011 @ 6:16 pmSince I’m a NASCAR fan, I can criticize Obama all I want.
Just playing the race card.
Punslinger (7b10c7) — 4/29/2011 @ 6:23 pmI don’t have to think, being a racist, I already know…
Or is it the other way around?
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 4/29/2011 @ 6:24 pm😀
“Daniel” is kind of douchey, no?
JD (306f5d) — 4/29/2011 @ 6:31 pmWhy did it take two years to release it? Why is the birth certificate now lock in a safe?
“The Obama birth certificate is now in a secure place where it is viewable by only a single person:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/04/27/the-birth-certificate/
or
locked in safe
Led1 (395e1b) — 4/29/2011 @ 7:22 pmThat Aaron made the argument he made in his post makes me question whether he’s ever encountered the concept of law, honestly.
Lawyer Joe (38e215) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:18 pmBugger off, asshat.
JD (318f81) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:29 pmLawyer Joe,
You, like Kman, go to great lengths to explain how smart you are and how stupid other people are.
That’s how we know you’re full of crap. You can’t just let your argument speak for itself.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:32 pmLawyer Joe – Make your argument in all caps. That makes it easier for the rubes here to understand. Otherwise, just keep repeating yourself, that helps too.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:36 pmAt the very least there should have been an official statement from the registrar setting forth all the facts, namely that the filing was made on that date, by that hospital, and signed by that doctor.
Are you aware that here you’ve described a certificate of live birth exactly? There is no legal or functional difference between what you just described and WHAT OBAMA RELEASED IN 2007.
Auguste (5789a2) — 4/29/2011 @ 9:46 pm2007? Really?
JD (318f81) — 4/29/2011 @ 10:06 pmYou know, right before that election he won. He released the official document that Hawaii sends out now. That didn’t make you dimwits happy, despite it being the official document, so he requested a copy of the long form birth certificate, something not normally released. They had to waive the rule that didn’t allow the release. You people are funny and stupid and gullible. What’s the next conspiracy theory going to be? That’s about all you guys have going now. One after the other.
The Stink Of Breitbart (pew) (d76562) — 4/30/2011 @ 12:08 amNo they didn’t.
Every single state in the Union will provide you with a copy of your own birth certificate upon request. Costs may vary, as might the amount of time it would take to get it (as an example, for Kansas – my state of birth – it would cost a total of $15 per copy, and $11 for the “go and find it” fee, and if I placed the order over the phone or over the internet, I would probably have it in my hand within a week), but no state can prevent anyone from making public their own birth certificate.
But you just keep on being a dipsh*t, dude.
I’d point out that Breitbart wasn’t a birther, but I suspect you only believe what MMfA tells you.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 4/30/2011 @ 12:36 amIt’s just pathetic for some nutcase to insist all the people who weren’t birthers and argued against birthers are actually birthers.
No, ‘stink’, Obama finally showing this long form document didn’t actually beat back the majority of the informed right, because 1) we weren’t birthers, and 2) there were other reasons to be curious about Obama’s behavior than constitutional eligibility.
No, Obama is somehow so untrusted by this country that only 38% of us were willing to say we knew he was born in Hawaii (many being Republicans). He produced the long form because he tried to play up birthers for the same reason you do. You want to ridicule an embarrassed opponent instead of deal with real criticisms.
It’s hard to hold it against Obama that some kooks believed he’s dishonest. Kooks said horrible things about Bush, too. And to be fair, I have written off plenty of lefties who happened to be truthers, even if they had something else to talk about.
Yes, exactly. You want to ignore all the arguments about Obama’s miserable failure by insisting it’s all birthers and racists. Good luck with that in 2012 when we demand to see the Libyan disaster’s birth certificate, or the long form on the deficit, or muse about the birthplace of the $6 gallon of gasoline.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/30/2011 @ 1:01 amOh, and Scott’s right. They did claim Obama couldn’t possibly get this long form, but it’s a little silly to pretend it was impossible after he got it with a single request. No, he didn’t show it to us before because it’s simply very good evidence. The COLB, while more than sufficient legally, was just on the edge for the paranoia of millions, since it’s just computer generated.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/30/2011 @ 1:05 am“He released the official document that Hawaii sends out now. That didn’t make you dimwits happy…”
Well, duh.
We still have a poopyhead socialist for our president.
That makes us sad.
Dave Surls (12083e) — 4/30/2011 @ 2:06 amLawyer Joe, I’m finding the arguments against you very convincing. Your mistake was when you showed up, cited relevant law, bolded a specific section, and then explained how the facts at issue operated with the law. This is not the way to win. Try:
“Bugger off, asshat”
Nice try, Joe. Sorry but you lose.
daniel (280b35) — 4/30/2011 @ 6:10 amLMAO OCR?
How about “if you are looking at a digital representation of something, if you don’t like that representation, don’t look at it”?
If you take a digital photograph of Obama on a low enough resolution, you can claim he is made out of lego. However, you are still just critiquing the settings of a meaningless copy, not the object which is represented.
YOU ARE ON THE INTERNET. The WH released photocopies to the press. A scan only exists because you would have demanded it.
If you don’t like the WH scan for your benefit, how about one of you geniuses check the AP which is offering a 3000x pixel scan of their copy?
You know, because the state of Hawaii already telling you this repeatedly since 2008 somehow wasn’t good enough.
backstop (b11060) — 4/30/2011 @ 6:33 amNow backstop and the stink of BREITBART are just making things up. Anyone recognize “Daniel” yet?
JD (318f81) — 4/30/2011 @ 6:41 am“cited relevant law, bolded a specific section”
daniel – But he didn’t and the fact that neither of you understand that shows you are not worth wasting time on.
The FRE clearly states an original is the best evidence but a counterpart may be submitted. The COLB is not a counterpart, it is an abstract which Hawaii say may be used for legal proof. It is clearly less complete than the original, which was not unduly difficult to obtain.
This is not hard.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/30/2011 @ 6:47 amDaleyrocks – it just proves you are racist.
JD (318f81) — 4/30/2011 @ 6:49 amJD – Denounce me, I deserve it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/30/2011 @ 6:50 amDenounced. Denounced and condemned.
Remember when k spoke of people invested in continuing to call people birthers? See Daniel. Joe. That Breitbart hater. Yelverton. Kmart.
JD (318f81) — 4/30/2011 @ 7:11 am“Remember when k spoke of people invested in continuing to call people birthers?”
JD – See the ratio of birther coverage on CNN and PMSNBC relative to its coverage on Fox. That tells you who kept the issue alive.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/30/2011 @ 7:20 am____________________________________________
At least other aspects of the background and history of the current occupant of the White House fit a historic and distinguished narrative.
^ All the controversy over same-sex marriage?!! Pfftt. It’s time we start respecting and codifying polygamy.
Mark (411533) — 4/30/2011 @ 7:42 amWhere did daniel go?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/30/2011 @ 10:17 am“The FRE clearly states an original is the best evidence but a counterpart may be submitted.”
It says that a counterpart is an original if it is intended to act as such. COLB meets that definition, thus for the FRE, it is an original.
Further, the individual fields of the COLB are copied from Hawaii records, so by FRE 1005, may be admitted as a copy.
Think about it. Why would Hawaii be issuing documents which do not satisfy the rules of evidence?
daniel (13bfad) — 4/30/2011 @ 1:35 pmYou can call a cat a mouse all yu want, but it won’t make a cat a mouse.
How many names have you posted under, Daniel?
JD (318f81) — 4/30/2011 @ 1:39 pmdaniel, Hawaii did look at the best evidence before reaching a result. They had this long form the entire time.
The problem is that they didn’t show it to the general public for a while, even though it was costly to not do so, and people grew suspicious that Obama was hiding something or playing games with important matters.
Still, if you think the long form is the best evidence, all we need to do is establish that the State of Hawaii is the fact finder, since they did use that evidence.
Dustin (c16eca) — 4/30/2011 @ 1:40 pm“It says that a counterpart is an original if it is intended to act as such.”
daniel – Do you know what a counterpart is?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/30/2011 @ 1:42 pm“It says that a counterpart is an original if it is intended to act as such.”
daniel – Have you ever witnessed documents being executed in counterparts?
Are those documents identical?
Are the long and short-form identical?
Seriously, get a life.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/30/2011 @ 1:45 pm“daniel, Hawaii did look at the best evidence before reaching a result”
You’re misunderstanding the best evidence rule. That’s not what it’s about, but it is what Aaron has led you to believe it is about.
“Are the long and short-form identical?”
They’re not identical, but that is not what is required. The COLB can be used to prove the contents of Hawaii records. Why the hell would they issue it if it couldn’t? You still haven’t answered this.
daniel (e546cc) — 4/30/2011 @ 2:24 pmDaniel
> Ah, so your metaphor is the classic mistaken understanding of the best evidence rule that any evidence textbook would warn about.
See what I mean? You’re either really slow, or you are just trying to intentionally annoy us. And that’s Kman’s job.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 4/30/2011 @ 2:29 pm“Daniel” – how many names have you posted under here?
JD (0d2ffc) — 4/30/2011 @ 2:52 pm“They’re not identical, but that is not what is required.”
daniel – Are they counterparts? You still have not answered this.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/30/2011 @ 3:17 pm“You’re either really slow, or you are just trying to intentionally annoy us.”
A.W. – I vote stupid, slow and annoying. Just review daniel’s unwillingness to answer questions.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/30/2011 @ 3:19 pm“The COLB can be used to prove the contents of Hawaii records.”
daniel – With this statement you prove you do not understand the best evidence rule. Keep repeating though, it never gets old.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/30/2011 @ 5:07 pmThis is a 2011 electronic presentation of a microfilm of Obama’s “long form” COLB.
They scanned the microfilm, which is a “negative” of the actual original (long ago discarded). They negated it again to make it positive, quantized the “grey level” scanned image to “black or white,” then added the cross-hatched background electronically as a separate layer, to make it look like it had been printed on safety paper.
The reality here that many seem to forget is that the State of Hawaii can change the presentation of a COLB anytime they wish. Just because it doesn’t look like a COLB issued 10 years ago doesn’t make it a fake. They sign and attest on the bottom that this is an accurate copy of the original COLB, not the original COLB itself.
My suggestion, just look at the black portion of the pdf, it is a copy of a microfilm copy of the original COLB … and it is as close to a “real” original COLB as we will ever see .. for anybody in 2011 born in 1961.
Neo (03e5c2) — 5/2/2011 @ 1:04 pmThe submitted document is a fake.
See here:
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/the-odds-are-racist/
This could be definitive proof that the document released last week was forged/phony. The explanation of the document’s shortcomings is simple, straightforward, and understandable by almost anyone. It does not rely on arcane computer knowledge.
The release of such a document claiming it as an official state document is criminal fraud and/or forgery, is it not?
Thanks for your time.
Bob M.
BobM (e4c8fd) — 5/2/2011 @ 4:37 pm“This is a 2011 electronic presentation of a microfilm of Obama’s “long form” COLB.”
Neo – Do you have a link to something that says Hawaii put all these records on microfilm?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2011 @ 4:49 pm