This is the first installment in a series of articles I plan to write in which I will clearly demonstrate that there is no doubt that the forgery claims made by the Maricopa County Arizona Cold Case Posse concerning the validity of the President’s long form birth certificate are false.
I will show that a Xerox WorkCentre multifunction copier/scanner/printer will create a nearly identical PDF file when a similar document is scanned to email using default settings.
As readers of this blog know NBC and I have conducted tests using printouts of the PDF file posted at WhiteHouse.gov on two different Xerox WorkCentre models and obtained PDF files displaying nearly all of the so-called anomalies that the CCP and other Birther self proclaimed “experts” have claimed are proof that the PDF was somehow created using some unnamed photo editing software. See my previous articles Xerox for Dummies, Blogger NBC Identifies the “Forger” for the CCP: Grande Commandante Zullo – Better Go Slap the Cuffs on the Xerox Machine, and Xerox Theory Consistent with Ivan Zatkovich Report.
First a bit of history.
How was the Xerox identified as the source of the LFBC PDF file? I could write several articles on that subject alone. It would have been ridiculously easy to identify a Xerox WorkCentre as the source of the PDF except for one twist of fate. Whoever scanned one of the two certified copies the President’s certified birth certificate obtained from Hawaii resaved it in OSx Preview (most likely to rotate the orientation). The new file saved in Preview is what was posted on April 27, 2011. Preview also happened to obliterate all the metadata that would have identified the Xerox WorCentre as the source of the original scan.
In 2011 self proclaimed Birther “experts” like Doug Vogt, Karl Denninger, Mara Zebest, Tom Harrison, and Tim Selaty published claims that the layers and other anomalies were proof that the PDF was a forgery. The centerpiece of the claims was that the PDF file had “layers” and that the layers were evidence the document was somehow assembled by a “forger” who apparently copied bits and pieces from other birth certificates.
What none of these Birther “experts” offered was any prior experience in forensic document analysis nor any consistent theory about the workflow that produced the document. Their analyses mostly consisted of statements like “I see this in the document. I have never seen this and cannot explain this therefore it is proof of forgery”.
WND hired three real forensic document analysts to opine on the authenticity of the LFBC and none of them found that it was forged. Probably the most renowned investigator of computer images and tampering, Neal Krawetz, addressed the claims of forgery on his Hacker Factor blog and also dismissed them.
John Woodman a Missouri Republican and owner of a computer repair business became intrigued by these claims of forgery and determined that he would figure out one way or the other if the LFBC was really forged as some have claimed.
Woodman spent hundreds of hours carefully examining every claim and found them lacking. Woodman published a book titled Is Obama’s Birth Certificate a Fraud and ran an active blog where he added many articles debunking other Birther claims. One of Woodman’s key observations was that when the so-called anomalies are examined they all point to a computer algorithm rather than human manipulation. He found for example that letters that touched the form lines tended to be placed in the JPG layer with the green background and the form lines. There would be no reason for a forger to break up words like that.
The Cold Case Posse of course completely ignored John Woodman’s offer to assist in their investigation. This should tell you what you need to know about whether this was a serious investigation from the outset.
Anti-Birthers and it seemed every legal authority accepted the obvious that the PDF was not a forgery it was just an image of a document that Hawaii has said they produced. Then in late 2011 Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced that he was going activate his Case Posse to look at the authenticity of the LFBC. This was after a number of members of the Surprise, AZ Tea Party beseeched Arpaio to do something after Conspiracy Nut Extraordinaire Jerome Corsi had spoken at one of their meetings.
The history of the CCP investigation is well documented on my CCP Timeline. The CCP drug out the discredited1 analyses of folks like Mara Zebest and Doug Vogt. They also apparently performed some new testing to try to eliminate various scanning software as the source of the PDF. The report that the CCP released is very short on detail and long on conclusion that scanning software using compression could not be the source of the WH LFBC PDF.
By 2012 Anti-Birthers like me, NBC (owner of the Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored blog), and several regular commenters there and at Kevin Davidson’s Obama Conspiracy Theories blog began speculating on what compression algorithm would do what the Birther “experts” like Garrett Papit claimed was not possible: to produce a scan with one 8 bit color layer and multiple 1 bit monochrome layers and to separate a scan into a PDF with layers similar tot he LFBC PDF.
The CCP and their “experts” said it just couldn’t be done. Here is what Karl Denninger said at Frank Arduini’s SCIBD page last year:
The validation of your theory should be simple. All you need to do is take an authentic official birth certificate, scan it, run it through your choice of software and produce a file that contains the same set of elements (within a reasonable level of variation) and which makes the same decisions you claim the computer made here. That’s all. (PS: This has been tried… and failed. Good luck.)
I hope Mr. Denninger has been following our work and checks out what is to come in this series of articles.
The first suggestion that a Xerox WorkCentre office machine might be the source of the LFBC PDF seems to have been made by a comment named justlw at Obama Conspiracy Theories on March 20, 2012:
I finally got a chance to play around a little with my Mac and a scanner, and have come to a shocking conclusion:
I have a really old, crummy scanner.
But based on my poking around, I would put money on the White House having a Xerox WorkCentre color copier/scanner with a “scan to email” feature, rather than anything attached directly to someone’s Macintosh.
This would fit the available data, including the MRC artifacts. There is no intrinsic MRC functionality that I can see in Mac OS Quartz, so it’s much more likely it came from the scanner with MRC compression already in place, and WorkCentre copier/scanners do come with MRC built in.
It is surprising in hindsight that someone didn’t immediately look at performing actual field tests on a Xerox WorkCentre. However, it is not as simple as it might seem. First, one would have to have access to such a machine. Second, no rational person really had any doubt that the forgery claims were nonsense by that time. Personally, I had invested the time to investigate the Birther claims and found them all lacking. The 2012 presidential campaign was underway and most of the focus was on the crazy series of ballot challenges filed by Birthers. Many of those concerned not the LFBC but the definition of natural born citizen. In the few hearings where Birther “experts” like Paul Irey and Doug Vogt were allowed to testify the judges ruled they were not experts and contributed nothing.
Second, the suggestion was buried in a comment on an active blog that receives hundreds of comments per week. It was lost to me and probably others in all the noise of Birther discussions. Also, it was only a suggestion and there are many similar office machines out there from multiple manufacturers. Who knew which one to check?
Finally, the Xerox WorkCentres are very expensive machines and usually only available at larger offices. Most models sell for $10,000 and up. They are not your typical home multifunction printer-scanner-fax that one would have handy.
I must credit W. Kevin Vicklund here for it was he who remembered justlw’s comment and Kevin did follow up later. justlw turned our to be spot on with his comment.
The discussion of compression algorithms continued on several blogs and eventually focused on one particular algorithm: Mixer Raster Content or MRC compression. The reason for the focus on MRC compression was that it seemed to do some of the things seen in the LFBC PDF. It was designed to handle documents that contained a mixture of images, shapes and text and compress these to very small PDF files.
Kevin Vicklund found Xerox patents on MRC compression, He commented on these at Obama Conspiracy Theories and linked one of the Xerox MRC compression patents.
NBC then found a file posted on the Internet that showed the creator was a Xerox WorkCentre and consisted of the layers as predicted by the MRC patents. The stage was now set for some testing.
NBC then made an important discovery. He found that the Obama 2011 income tax returns posted on the WhiteHouse.gov website in PDF format showed the creator was a Xerox WorkCentre 7655. This meant that at least one Xerox WorkCentre was installed at the Executive Office of the President and that there were likely more.
Now it was time to do some testing. NBC was fortunate enough to have access to a Xerox WorkCentre 7655. He printed a color copy of the LFBC and scanned it to email on the WorkCentre. His results were remarkable. He saw a PDF file very similar to the WH LFBC PDF with one 8 bit JPG layer and multiple 1 bit monochrome layers. The signature stamp and date stamp were separated into their own layers too. Karl Denninger’s challenge had been met without even using an original birth certificate but instead using a lower quality print out of the WH LFBC image.
As luck would have it I happened to obtain access to a Xerox WokCentre 7535 shortly after NBC ran his tests. I was able to duplicate his results by scanning a color printed copy of the LFBC. I wrote several articles on the results that are linked above.
Now we had shown that most of the anomalies in the WH LFBC PDF could be explained using even rudimentary tests. The layers, the movable date stamp and signature stamp, the separation of the green background and form in a JPG layer, the white “holes”, the sepration of most of the text in another layer, all were demonstrated.
One anomaly that remained was the white halos. We couldn’t use a print out of the WH LFBC since it already had the halos. That will be addressed in Part II…..
1 Some readers might object to my use of the term “discredited” to describe the opinions of the self appointed experts like Doug Vogt. Mara Zebest and others. However, the actual experts hired by WND and Neal Krawetz disagreed and no legal body has found their analyses to be of any value. The MCSO Cold Case Posse has embraced their view but my conversation with an official even within the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office indicated that the CCP is not taken seriously. When a member of the CCP asked the Maricopa County Prosecutors Office to move on the evidence gathered by the CCP he declined and said nothing presented indicated a crime had bee committed.
RC Radio Blog 
Well, shucks. I should say that if I saw WorkCentres earlier than others, it’s because I stood on the shoulders of other intartube commenters — either JPotter or NBC, or both, if memory serves. I’m certain I’d seen one or both of them mention that the artifacts were very MRC-ish, and after seeing that Quartz had no MRC in it, the next obvious conclusion was that the scanning device itself must have had it built in — and looky there, there’s a whole line of commonly deployed office-grade systems with MRC built in!
And of course I’d be remiss not to give all due credit to the CCP and the TPPH for making the most ridiculous claim possible, just begging for falsification: that the artifacts could only have been the product of human intervention.
Pingback: Driving the final nail into the Cold Case Posse “investigation” coffin–Part I | Thinking out loud in the North
“there’s a whole line of commonly deployed office-grade systems with MRC built in!”
How “commonly”? Is it fair to expect anyone who claims to be an “expert” to know this without needing to do research?
I’ve mocked the CCP many times for not knowing about the existence of Xerox machines with MRC, but I’m wondering if I’ve been unfair.
I remember, I did search for other WH-documents in 2012.
I had ~100 , looked for halos and searched for keywords.
Probably “preview” and such – no success.
Then I searched the web for similar halos, also without much success.
Before that I had just asked the WH, what hard-and software
they had used – no response.
Check out part two for two documents scanned on a Xerox WorkCentre that exhibit halos.
Did you really expect the White House to respond?
yes. Well, my estimate was at maybe 50%
the halos are produced by the MRC software ? Before preview sees it ?
And maybe increased or altered a bit by the subsequent JPG
compression, of the background layer.
maybe we (and, of course, the posse and all the others who examined it)
should just have checked the products of the major scanner producers.
There can’t be so many.
Pingback: Driving the final nail into the Cold Case Posse “investigation” coffin–Part II | RC Radio Blog
Pingback: Driving the final nail into the Cold Case Posse “investigation” coffin–Part III | RC Radio Blog
You Obots put a lot of work into this horseshit.
Feeling guilty?
No, more like “vindicated”.
Even though it was obvious to anyone with knowledge of technology and the law that the claims of birthers about the IMAGE of the birth certificate were both wrong and irrelevant, it was nice to see someone _prove_ them wrong.
not so obvious. Many knowledgable people got it wrong.
It was quite some work required to examine it.
Could this have been avoided ? Improved ?
There should be some system in place to examine the truth of such claims.
An open internet system with discussion.
The justice system is antiquated and don’t work so well here. It’s slow and full of secrecy
and not open and biased by nationality.
e.g. that system should have examined Bush’s WMD-claim in 2002
What “knowledgeable people” thought that the DIGITAL PICTURE on the WH website was an actual document?
What “knowledgeable people” thought that the process by which it was scanned and uploaded had any relevance to the authenticity of the certified copies or the original?
The truth of those claims _was_ examined, and found to be lacking.
As was the truth of the WMD claims, which was also found to be absent.
The difference is that, in 2003, most of the country was participating in our post-9/11 National Nervous Breakdown, and didn’t pay attention to rational examination, while this time only a small minority embraced insanity.
> What “knowledgeable people” thought that the DIGITAL PICTURE on the WH website was
> an actual document?
some thought it was a true and correct scan/photocopy of the real document as decribed by the
WhiteHouse. For a list of people see e.g. Doc Conspiracy’s birther-list
[Trump,Denninger,Corsi,Arpaio,Monckton,…]
Although the juristical relevance is still in the paper-document (that’s your point here ?)
the falsification would still be a very bad thing for a president, reducing his credibility.
> What “knowledgeable people” thought that the process by which it was scanned and
> uploaded had any relevance to the authenticity of the certified copies or the original?
it would identify Obama/WH as dishonest liars ?!
> The truth of those claims _was_ examined, and found to be lacking.
that’s what one group said, while the other group claimed the opposite.
The arguments were initially not convincing enough
> As was the truth of the WMD claims, which was also found to be absent.
> The difference is that, in 2003, most of the country was participating in our post-9/11
> National Nervous Breakdown, and didn’t pay attention to rational examination,
> while this time only a small minority embraced insanity.
then and now the average people didn’t dig into the details.
This tedious process should be done by a credible and effective
and competent and open organisation/procedure
like wikipedia,factcheck or such but with public discussion forum and reply to questions
(FAQ if there are too many) and international
I did ask “What people thought … ?”: I asked “What KNOWLEDGEABLE people thought … ?”.
Every one of those people you listed has expressed (not necessarily honestly) a lack of understanding of the fundamental fact that “a picture of a document” is NOT “a document”, and demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the technology involved.
Did I mistranslate knowledgeable ?
Well known, respected in their audience, in big populations.
They had some expertise, did analyze the thing.
Better analyses became available only later. E.g. the Xerox
was only found after 2? years.
Can you give some clear guidelines how to judge early in possible
similar cases in the future ?
” lack of understanding of the fundamental fact that “a picture of a document”
is NOT “a document” ” ,if true, is not a suitable criterion IMO
BTW. now we have the crash of MH17 which is heavily and controversely discussed in
internet, while the official commission keeps silent. Can we learn from the birther discussion
how to handle that MH17 discussion, how to find the truth ?
“Did I mistranslate knowledgeable ?”
Yes: the dictionary definition of the word includes “well-informed”. People who think the PDF is “a document” are not. People who think the ordinary artifacts of a widely-used scanner are “anomalies” are not.
“They had some expertise, did analyze the thing.”
They had no _relevant_ expertise. If they had, they never would have “analyze[d] the thing” in the first place: they would have known it was irrelevant, and they wouldn’t have gotten their “analyses” so thoroughly wrong.
“Better analyses became available only later.”
Bull: they were available at the time. Several people with _real_ expertise pointed out that the whole notion of what they were doing was nonsense.
“Can you give some clear guidelines how to judge early in possible similar cases in the future ?”
Sure:
1. Ask them to tell you _exactly_ what law has been violated. If they had tried to, it would have been immediately obvious that there was no “forgery”, because a _picture_ of a document cannot, by definition, be one.
2. Demand that they show you proof of their alleged “expertise”: professional certification and/or experience _in the area where they’re offering opinions_. None of the phony birther “experts” had ever been consulted by anyone about the authenticity of digital documents, or about establishing the authenticity of a real document by examining a picture of it.
it was not all just about the pdf being “a document”
> 1. Ask them to tell you _exactly_ what law has been violated. If they had tried to,
> it would have been immediately obvious that there was no “forgery”, because a _picture_
> of a document cannot, by definition, be one.
asking typically gets no replies. This includes the White House, btw.
And I remember, that D.Vogt who gave one of the first analyses
was challenged in public on obamaconspiracy.com with detailed
critics, but there was no real reply and discussion emerging.
Instead the claims were repeated by others (Zebest,Corsi, etc.)
while ignoring the critics.
And, as I said, even if no law had been violated, a falsified picture
on the WH-webpage would have been a severe thing.
> 2. Demand that they show you proof of their alleged “expertise”:
> professional certification and/or experience _in the area where they’re offering opinions_.
> None of the phony birther “experts” had ever been consulted by anyone about the authenticity
> of digital documents, or about establishing the authenticity of a real document by examining
> a picture of it.
to my experience the amount of expertise is not really a very useful criterion in
such biased,political discussions. We had Larry Klayman, Herb Titus, Donald Trump
on the birther-side
Pingback: Xerox for Dummies | RC Radio Blog
There is something called ‘prima facie’ evidence. When Det. Zullo stated ‘the evidence was not ready for trial,’ he was hedging his research and experts’ opinions as reported to his team. After all, all they had to work with was ‘hearsay’ evidence, unofficial documents.
While contradictors managed to simulate a broken up scan file, the evidence in Illustrator is not just random rotations and 1-bit mixed with 8-bit color ‘parts,’ but actual ‘histories’ describing the actions taken (rotate, move, resize) in the layer histories. This is specific and readable only in Illustrator. It is not vague, but direct proof the document was indeed manipulated in Illustrator.
If new metadata was found, the expert opined the PDF was opened with another program, ‘Preview,’ and saved.
This cannot explain away, however, the specific layers and ‘action’ histories recorded in Illustrator.
Then, there is the four-day delay in registration. The ‘attending’ is not an MD, DO, or Midwife, but ‘Other.’ It was a Vital Records clerk.
There is a fax version of the short form in which the grandmother’s signature and delayed registration appear, the ‘explanation’ for delayed registration of live birth from Aug 4 DOB to Aug 8 registration was “Birthplace: Kenya; Registered Honolulu HRS 338-17.8 per grandmother.’
In the law and rules of evidence, a document ‘not the original certified copy’ is NOT exempt from the ‘hearsay rules.’ That means, as Det. Zullo reported, and I paraphrase from an article you cited, ‘the evidence was not ready for court.’
Finally, while the prima facie evidence caused a stir, as hearsay (none of the documents official product but second-hand copies) Det. Zullo could not professionally make a final determination.
As I’ve mentioned many times before, as ‘granular’ as one wants to get going down the rabbit hole of birth certificate theories, all involved stipulate to the one fact that Obama’s father was NOT a U.S. citizen, and therefore Obama, Jr. didn’t meet natural born citizen requirements as written in the constitution. His citizenship was ‘by operation of naturalization law,’ and his ‘citizenship at birth’ status was statutory, changes in law that occurred in either the 1940 INA, or as revised in 1952 . . . AND . . . and that’s a BIG ‘and,’ none of those laws revised the constitution and the framers’ understanding of nationality law, that citizenship was devolved by blood inheritance (jus sanguinis) from the father! That fact is confirmed when compared to the British Nationality Act of 1772, the admission of the 1898 Supreme Court declaring there was NO JUS SOLI, or ‘soil birthright citizenship’ in the constitution or statute, and the determination of John McCain’s eligibility in SR511.
Obama was not eligible to the presidency and neither is Kamala Harris or Nikki Haley. And . . . for good measure, I published an article describing the exact circumstances of Ted Cruz’s birth and the 1952 law that gave him retroactive ‘citizenship at birth.’ So, Cruz is also not eligible.
There were well over 100 cases (counting appeals over 200) filed against Obama’s eligibility. Could please cite just one case where Obama was declared ineligible? If not then all we have is your uninformed word on it don’t we?
I am still waiting for you to open the file I linked in Adobe Illustrator and tell me what you see?
I don’t have any file of yours to open. I only have the PDF downloaded directly from the White House website on April 27, 2011. Adobe Photoshop showed nothing, but Adobe Illustrator showed all nine layers of manipulated ‘art’ and the histories showing specific actions of the ‘artist’ who compiled the faked document. The actions are specific to each layer and ‘tool’ used to move, rotate, and resize the various elements in their own layers. It is not a vague reproduction, but specific actions.
That is forensic scientific evidence as it is direct, clear, specific and reproduceable by anyone else with the original file and Adobe Illustrator.
As for all those ‘natural born citizen’ cases, there are about five Supreme Court cases that mention ‘natural born citizen.’ Happersett defined natural born citizenship, but only in dicta. But the Elg case precisely defines the daughter being born to a naturalized citizen father (who repatriated to Sweden or Norway after she reached the age of majority) as a ‘natural born citizen.’ The Senate Report 511 also clearly defines natural born citizen as applied to a foreign born U.S. citizen, case closed.
Again, those numerous cases refer to never saw evidence, nor were they courts of proper subject matter jurisdiction. So, their opinion means, well, SQUAT.
If you like, I have letters from two congressmen in response to my challenges, but they too, as you, relied on cases in courts that had no expertise or jurisdiction; just incompetent judges flapping their gums. ‘Citizenship at Birth’ is not equal to ‘Natural Born Citizen,’ and ‘Native Born’ is also not a legal term of art. While natural born citizens are citizens at birth, many ‘citizens at birth’ are only so by ‘operation of naturalization law,’ which includes Obama, Ted Cruz, Kamala Harris, and Nikki Haley. They may be citizens at birth due to modern (1952) provisions added to Immigration and Nationality law, but they are NOT natural born citizens, citizenship inherited by blood of the father, jus sanguinis.
Jus Soli, Birthright Citizenship, did not exist until 1898, and that Supreme Court case specifically pointed out it did not exist in legislated act or the constitution, and therefore took on the duty to create the law themselves, albeit unconstitutionally.
Nowhere in that 1899 holding, vigorously dissented to by the Chief Justice, did they declare that the jus sanguinis element of citizenship as written into Article II’s presidential eligibility clause were revised or amended by that court holding. In fact, for ‘citizenship at birth’ merely by being born on U.S. soil to be accepted for the presidency would require an actual amendment to Article II by congress . . . not some court case.
And, I examined your ‘reproduction’ of the multi-layer file and it is not precise or scientific, and cannot be reproduced. It has no value forensically as the Illustrator explanation is reproduceable and precise.
What a ridiculous claim. Jus soli was in our common law and the authors of the Constitution were all well versed in English common law from where our definition of “natural born” was derived. The majority opinion in WKA explained that because of the common law in place even before the adoption of the 14th Amendment WKA would have been a citizen by his place of birth. The 14th Amendment was adopted to correct a flaw in the Constitution that allowed the racists on the court to rule that blacks could not be citizens in the terrible Dred Scott ruling.
Ridiculous? Then why Wong Kim Ark in the first place? Was Ark’s denial of citizenship purely decided by the Cooley Act and the Treaty with China’s Emperor? Yes, and also precedent in previous decisions as recent as 1884!
The Elk case correctly interprets the 14th Amendment, following the intent of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, that the father of the ‘native born’ child cannot have allegiance or be subject to any foreign power, period. The power of feudal British common law’s jus soli polluted many minds assuming ‘place of birth’ was a basic law, but that was the law of serfdom and lords, abandoned in the 1700’s.
If the matter was purely the agreed denial of naturalization by ANY Chinese person (by birth or oath) under the Cooley Act and Burlingame–Seward Treaty of 1868, then that was the matter to be discussed and acted upon by the Senate.
The matter of ‘jus soli’ citizenship at birth was specifically denied by the 14th Amendment (which, unlike Dredd Scott, was not racist). Citizenship was granted by children born of freed slaves, men who were stateless, had no subjection to any ‘foreign power.’
Justice Grey noted in his majority opinion that the principle of jus soli was missing in both the constitution and naturalization statute. In Blackstone, alien children born on English soil were ‘natural born subjects,’ but that was in 1351 law and abandoned in the 1700’s. Read the 1772 British Nationality Act. It was also missing from the First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790. In fact, law was added that children of English parents born in foreign lands did NOT acquire citizenship of the foreign land, unless the mother was not English.
Justice Grey also neglected to follow precedent in the Elk case.
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
For a lot of old law and tedious reading, feel free to peruse https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/who-is-a-citizen-at-birth-or-a-natural-born-citizen/
It is mostly law quoted and cited, few words of my own except to tie cited law together.
It is funny that you quoted Elk v WIlkins but do not see that in conjunction with Wong Kim Ark it clear shows that Wong was a natural born citizen. The court said in Elk v Wilkins:
This is one of several times the court has said there are two and only two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized. (Note the court has used natural born and native born citizen interchangeaably so we can consider them one class of citizen.) From the Birthers favorite case Minor v Hapeprsett:
So one one question needs to be answered and the answer is quite simple: The SC ruled WKA was a citizen. It has consistently stated as it did in Elk v Wilkins that there are two kinds of citizens. So which one of those two kinds was Wong Kim Ark? Natural born or naturalized? Those are the only choices. I will even give you a hint: the law in place prevented any one of Chinese descent from naturalizing.
Wong was a Chinese citizen at birth, by descent (jus sanguinis) and by statute as codified from 1790 through revisions as they appeared in statute. The 14th Amendment was codified in 8 USC 1401. All legislators debated and understood that ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ meant 100% authority, the father NOT being subject to any foreign power. Wong was also Chinese by treaty. So . . . totally Chinese.
Why Chinese? Because, as cited in Elk quoting the 14th Amendment and the 1866 Civil Rights Act, Wong’s ‘father was subject to a foreign power.’
The SC in Wong Kim Ark decided Wong was a citizen by being born on U.S. soil under the feudal concept of jus soli, an antiquated and rejected British common law. This was not only in conflict with existing statute, but unconstitutional.
DEFINITION: Naturalized
Naturalization is the dealienage of foreign allegiance and nationality through operation of law. In the case of Obama, he was a citizen at birth solely by statute which dealienaged his fathers British nationality through statute, specifically 8 USC 1409(c) if I recall correctly.
In an adult, an oath must be taken. For a child, they automatically follows the naturalization of the parent. When Ted Cruz’s mother repatriated to the U.S., INA §301(g) retroactively conferred citizenship at birth through his mother.
In case you didn’t read Elk, here is the pertinent point of law: “The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.“
What tripe! Wong was not naturalized, not ever. WKA made it clear that Wong at birth was under the jurisdiction of the United States and was therefore a citizen at birth. He was never naturalized. The government tried to deny his citizenship when he returned to China for a while but the court ruled it could not be taken away since he had been a citizen from birth. The dissent and leading attorneys at the time recognized that Wong was eligible to be president as long as he met the age and residency requirements. Why would they say that if he were naturalized?
So now we can just ignore SC decisions we do not like? I choose Bush v Gore, it’s gone. Now we just saved 2 trillion on the Iraq war. Oh and that crappy, stupid Dobbs decision that let’s the government control a woman’s body? I just flushed that one down the toilet where it belongs.
Did you never hear of DISSENT? Many great laws were made through dissent of the majority opinion, overturning the original case. Lochner vs NY is a famous one. Roe v Wade was overturned, relying on the dissent. Have you read Chief Justice Fuller’s DISSENT concerning Wong Kim Ark?
Bush v Gore will never be overturned as it was a ‘remand,’ ordering the Florida court to follow the law and certify the election.
So, not only have you failed to read the law, from 1790 to 1898, that there was never a provision for mere ‘native birth’ as a condition of citizenship, not until the court unconstitutionally created it in 1898, but you refuse to see that there is massive evidence that Obama, Jr. was born in Mombasa, Kenya. People tried to get it into court, but the courts kicked the can down the road, refusing to hear the case based on Political Questions Doctrine, or Standing . . . and they refused to submit the Lucas Smith affidavit and Mombasa birth certificate to a Kenyan court of proper jurisdiction to confirm its authenticity.
Wong Kim Ark’s holding is an unconstitutional and foolish law that congress can overturn in one day, but modern legislators are, like you, mass hypnotized into thinking ‘birthright citizenship’ is a real thing, and that a statutory ‘citizen at birth’ = ‘natural born citizen.’ I posted the replies from two legislators writing back to me and another constituent, we both declaring Obama was NOT a natural born citizen, and we are correct. Obama was a citizen due to 8 USC 1409, out of country birth to a U.S. citizen mother who was unmarried. UNMARRIED? Yes, Obama, Sr. was a serial bigamist and bigamy rendered the Hawaiian marriage void ab initio.
So, the law was bastardized making the way for a bastard president!
Evidence, very circumstantial but overwhelming, especially the short forms and the fraud forging a fake long form birth certificate, disappearance of flight records . . . (airlines do not fly pregnant women, requiring them to have the baby first before returning to the United States) and Obama’s REFUSAL to submit the actual official document, just a PDF that has evidence of being doctored up . . . moves the scale heavily on the side of NOT BORN IN HAWAII.
Did you not read the explanation of law, the 14th Amendment, in the Elk case? There was no ‘citizenship at birth’ solely by being born on U.S. soil in statute or the constitution . . . Even the British didn’t have it since their 1772 Nationality Act! The Wong Kim Ark court cited this, but then sidestepped, not citing the law precedent that made the case moot, over. It was a tricky and intentional cover up, hiding the law that undermined their case.
So, under the 14th Amendment, statute, and treaty Wong Kim Ark was not a U.S. citizen. He had Chinese citizenship.
But, somehow Wong’s case, he a 22-year old cook, made it all the way to the Supreme Court . . . perhaps a political move costing lots of gold to gain citizenship for Chinese nationals, many in San Francisco and making money in the gold fields and through ‘Chinese Merchant Associations.’ Some call them the Tong . . . they used Ark’s complaint to make their constituents open to citizenship and therefore political power as a group.
So, the fix was in . . . the Wong Kim Ark court merely had to figure a way to ‘twist the law’ and lie in order to create, out of whole cloth and ancient feudal law, jus soli citizenship at birth for children of aliens. However, Article I Sec 8 gives plenary power over naturalization law to congress. The courts don’t have that power.
And, a law with provisions to ‘de-alienage’ a Chinese citizen baby of their Chinese nationality on the condition they were born on U.S. soil is a, as a court describes it, ‘naturalized’ by operation of law . . . not ‘natural born’ as the baby was a natural born Chinese, with Chinese allegiance from the father that required naturalization to remove it. That’s how a baby can be naturalized.
This is from Wong Kim Ark:
See the part I highlighted? How can you read that and claim Wong was naturalized?
The 14th Amendment does NOT give citizenship to children of aliens. Even that court admitted it. It created jus soli birth independent of the constitution and statute! Read the Elk case in which they state that very fact. Read the Congressional Globe (Congressional Record) for the ratification of the 14th Amendment . . . they made it clear if the child had a father with foreign subjection, allegiance, i.e., citizenship, the child was NOT a U.S. citizen. Read the 1866 Civil Rights Act which was made permanent law through the 14th Amendment.
You’d know this if you actually read the entire case, or even my memorandum briefing the case.
If a person, even a child, has any foreign nationality, naturalization law is required to remove it by meeting statutory conditions for a child or by declaration and oath for an adult. So, Obama was a citizen at birth by operation of naturalization law, i.e., naturalized.
If Obama’s father was a U.S. citizen, he would be a natural born citizen. There are distinctions in law and in terms of art.
So, do some study . . . figure out how to overcome your terminal case of Cognitive Dissonance. You are really starting to belabor the point with stupid questions.
I replied with this link yesterday. https://rcradioblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/lfbc-xerox-7535-hiresprint.pdf
Lenny is ignoring this file because it shows his claims about Adobe Illustrator are BS. If you look up Birther in the dictionary the synonyms are “dishonest” and “coward”.
Find a copy of the 4/27/2011 PDF file and open it with Adobe Illustrator and my point will be made, in full.
Opinions and Hearsay don’t amount to anything . . . the file and its histories of forged elements in layers using tools will be there for you to see with your own eyes.
I have opened the WH PDF file in Adobe Illustrator many times. I found it was nearly identical to files created by scanning a similar document on a Xerox WorkCentre multinational office machine. So what’s your point?
Of course you mentioned prima facie evidence and demonstrated you do not have a f-ing clue what the term means. The Obama birth certificates both short and long form AND letters of verification from Hawaii sent to at least two SoS are PRIMA FACIE evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. So take your uniformed Birther nonsense elsewhere until you can form a cogent argument.
The short form Certification of Live Birth states at the bottom that it is a ‘prima facie’ document. That means any claims and evidence contradicting facts as sworn to in the document (again, no attending witnessed the birth) cancel out the document as an official record until the matter determined in a court of law.
As for the XEROX machine, ‘close’ only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes. The file opened in Illustrator show precise and reproduceable layers and editing tools used in creating the so-called document . . . which isn’t a document at all, just a digital file. To this day, Obama refuses to (because he can’t) produce an official document.
‘Nearly’ doesn’t cut it. Does it show the history panels, the tools used and what editing was done in the 9 art layers? No?
Illustrator shows the document was edited, period. So, the document is not only not valid but evidence of a federal crime.
Illustrator doesn’t show anyone edited anything. It only shows a highly compressed file created using compression algorithms such as MRC and JBIG2. Proof of forgery would have to include the name of the forger and complete details of how it was carried out. Of course since Hawaii has validated the documents multiple times they are all valid legal documents. Just one of the letters of verification would be accepted in any court as proof of birth in Hawaii.
Your Dunning and Kruger are showing again.
The only way to produce an exact file would be to have possession of the original document and the Xerox equipment. I happened to have access to a Xerox WorkCentre and made a crude replica using a sheet of security paper and printed a copy of the AP JPG photo on it using a laser printer. The fact that the Xerox produced such a similar file with compression artifacts very like the ones in the WH LFBC pdf is actually quite remarkable.
Exhibit 1: Group Highlighted to Reveal Registrar Date Stamp External Link Exhibit 2: Group Highlighted Off to Reveal Registrar Text/Signature External Link That the registrar date stamp and the registrar text/signature stamps were both created by links to external objects imported into the Obama birth certificate is also confirmed by turning on “Links” in the “Window” menu in Adobe Illustrator.
Corsi, Jerome R.; Zullo, Michael. A Question of Eligibility: A Law Enforcement Investigation into Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate and His Eligibility to be President . Paperless Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
Unfortunately, the Exhibit images in Kindle are low resolution. I had a copy of Adobe Illustrator I purchased at a university student textbook store (I was a student in the only Bar Association Accredited Paralegal Program in New Mexico), an early 2000’s version which I used to open the freshly-downloaded PDF. The layers and tools-actions in sidebar panels were clearly visible showing step-by-step the paste, move, rotation, resizing actions of the forger. These actions are saved in ‘histories’ so the ‘artist’ can go back and undo a series of operations and redo them, the actions saved in RAM (very few people own Illustrator, and my copy was stolen(!) but Photoshop has an identical feature). Stand alone programs on CD are no longer available.
In Photoshop, the ‘histories’ are stored in Edit, Purge>. In Purge you can delete actions or ‘all,’ which opens your RAM up for more recording of editing histories.
Anyway, all this is moot.
If you read the Congressional Globe discussions of ratification of the final version of the 14th Amendment (Cf. Civil Rights Act of 1866) it is made clear to ‘slower’ legislators that the ‘born in the United States . . . subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ phrase did not confer citizenship to children of fathers who had ‘subjection to a foreign power.’ The provision was to grant citizenship to freed slaves whose fathers were stateless, unable to confer natural citizenship. And, ‘natural’ means from the father, by blood, i.e., jus sanguinis.
If the 14th Amendment gave all ‘born in the United States’ citizenship at birth, the Wong Kim Ark case would merely state that and remand the issue back to a court of proper jurisdiction. In fact, citing Elk vs Wilkins (and if you read the record in the Congresional Globe discussions), if the father was a foreign national, the ‘born in the U.S.’ did NOT apply. The child was still the nationality of the father.
Barack Obama and the other politicians named in previous posts, including Harris and Haley, are not eligible to the presidency.
You and other Birthers like not a detective Zullo completely ignore the existence of other copies of the LFBC like AP photographer Scott Applewhite’s photo of the LFBC taken at the presser on 4/27/2011. You have to ignore it because it instantly blows your forgery claims out of the water.
A ‘photo’ of a claimed official document? Are you kidding? You claim a photo of a fake document is evidence the doc is real? All it proves is the document is solid and reflects light through a camera lens to make an image. You obviously never studied law or read Rules of Evidence, and you haven’t any common sense. ‘Blows out of the water?’ More like ‘blowing smoke’ up our collective asses.
The Lucas documents were sent to every legislator with a signed affidavit. The courts refused to verify the document through Kenya, political corruption at its finest. Jerome Corsi went to Kenya to duplicate Lucas’ access to the official documents but Hillary Clinton had him arrested and detained in customs, and deported back to the U.S.
Wow . . . why all the fuss over authenticating a foreign official document?
How can a photo of a document you claimed is a forgery show details not in the document that you claim was forged? The answer is the AP photo was a high res photo of a copy the original certified BC flown from Hawaii. Copies are usually made at 600 or even 1200 dpi resolution with no compression depending on the settings on the WorkCentre for example. The WH LFBC PDF file was created using the scan to email feature on the same machine. The scan to email process uses aggressive compression algorithms (MRC and JBIG2) that turned an 8 MB bitmap file into a 377 kb PDF file that was posted on the WH web site. That is a compression ratio of over 20:1. Xerox assumes that for mixed content documents like the LFBC the convenience of a having a much smaller file to email and store outweighs the loss of resolution in the document. The AP photo was compressed but using only JPG compression that yield a higher resolution image.
A young German graduate student named David Kressel ran tests on Xerox WorkCentre machines using various documents and he discovered that JBIG2 compression, which saves file space by identifying letters and shapes that are nearly identical and storing only one copy in a 2 bit monochrome layer can lead to errors where some numbers were actually changed in the compressed files from what existed on the original. Of course Xerox was very embarrassed when this was discovered only said thank you and we are fixing it. After someone sent me a copy of his article I exchanged emails with Mr. Kressel and he was very impressed with work that I and others had done investigating the LFBC PDF. He even credited my work in a presentation he gave later at a large computing conference in Europe.
I suppose you meant the convicted forger Lucas Smith? He never provided a shred of evidence that he was ever in Kenya. The only thing he provided evidence of was sleeping with underage girls in the Dominican Republic or one of those countries in the area. Hillary Clinton never had him arrested. He spent time in jail for forging checks. He is a great source for you isn’t he? Also, he made several stupid, amateur mistakes on his forgery including the name of the hospital administrator.
I have a copy of Lucas Smith’s sworn affidavit accompanying copies of the Mombasa docs . . . lying on an official document is a crime, perjury. Perjury is a felony, so distributing copies with notarized and/or sworn declarations to members of congress through an attorney is a serious matter.
§1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury
Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
(Signature)”.
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
There are Five Birth Certificates. The short form on security paper is the one Obama submitted during his campaign. The ‘Blaine’ document, which was said to be copied by a Hawaiian records clerk on a fax machine) includes a font-correct description of why they registration was delayed from the Aug 8 birthdate to Aug 11. The reason, typed in, shows born in Kenya, per grandmother, and Haw Rev Stat 338-17.8. Hawaii at that time, 1961, was still a very young state and the legislative histories start about 1955 and took time to compile, revise, and publish.
So, it took three years of harassment and pledges to pay $2M . . . $25M . . . Trump himself offered over $100M for Barack to produce documents . . . finally, in 2011, Barack posted online a digital rendition of a birth certificate . . . totally unacceptable as evidence. And while Obama made a splash in the press and blogs, no court would accept the doc under 338-17.
And as for the names of officials on the Lucas docs, totally legit.
Then there is the matter of the U.S. court who blocked validation of the Lucas docs, refused to contact a Kenyan court of proper jurisdiction to make the ‘copies’ worthy of evidence . . . and then Jerome Corsi blocked from entering Kenya and deported, ostensibly by orders of Hillary’s State Department . . . there is an old saying, ‘Ye doth protest too much.’
Perjury is rarely prosecuted and Lucas Smith knew that when he filed the ridiculous affidavit covering his crude forgery. To be prosecuted the perjury has to be material to a serious case. Orly’s cases were all jokes that were dismissed for many reasons before Smith’s stupid affidavit would have been material. BTW we are still waiting for Lucas to post anything proving he actually ever went to Kenya. I think his original claim was he was in a neighboring country hunting dinosaurs when he popped over to Kenya and bribed someone to give him a copy of Obama’s birth certificate. What a liar!
Lots of famous perjury cases involving politicians, attorneys, public figures. The Trump ‘fraud’ case involves ‘misstating’ property valuations on contract applications. That is another form of lying, not perjury per se, but when the judge declares Mar-A-Lago, 20 acres of prime oceanfront property, is worth $18M instead of $750M, who is lying to commit a crime, Trump? Or, Malicious Prosecution by Letitia James . . . and that Capitol Police Officer who testified against the four Proud Boys inside the Capitol. After Pelosi lost control of the CCTV videos, it was proven he committed perjury in his sworn testimony.
The reason they didn’t go after Lucas can only mean one thing, logically . . . the docs were real. The reason Obama posted a manipulated PDF doc to quiet birth certificate questions was because the real ones proved he wasn’t actually born in the United States. Which means nothing except in opinion, because having a non-citizen father, who hated America, automatically disqualified him.
And, bribery is the way things work in ‘third world’ nations. That’s how you get officials to pay attention and do things for you. You disagree? Then you live in a world of rainbows and unicorns.
You have no basis in fact or inference that Lucas is lying. He put forth his claims and welcomed investigation and the evidence reviewed by courts of proper jurisdiction . . . that was BLOCKED because they didn’t want the proof.
Mr Dunning meet Mr. Kruger. 🙂
Ad Hominum Ad Infinitum
No facts . . . no research . . . no logic
All right let’s start with you explaining how the AP JPG photo of the LFBC has more detail than the WH LFBC PDF you claim was created from scratch. How could Scott Applewhite’s camera create details in the image that were not in the PDF released by the White House if it was a an original document produced from scratch? Until you satisfactorily provide a scientifically documented answer to that I will hold any further posts in moderation. For you convenience I am linking a copy of the AP JPG photo here. https://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BirthCertificateHighResolution.jpg You claim to already have a copy of the WH LFBC PDF file.
Doctor Conspiracy had a good article comparing the two documents. I will even share that with you:
https://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/06/long-form-artifacts-vanish-at-higher-resolution/
So get busy. Hint: A good place to start is the so called “TXE” on the WH LFBC PDF. When examined on the AP JPG photo it is clear it is really “THE” but the compression algorithms made it look like “TXE”. Doc has side by side photos in his article.
That’s just a vile lie. I spent countless hours and money over 10 years ago confirming the theory that blogger NBC from the Natural Born and Native Citizenship Explored blog when he first published that compression algorithms used XeroxWorkcentre multi-function machines produced the layers seen in the PDF published on the WH web site. Even even demonstrated that opening and saving the document on a Mac using Qurtz preview would add the masking layer sized to the area of the default printer. I confirmed every one of these claims. John Woodman spent hundreds of hours researching the claims like your over the summer of 2011 and concluded that none of the images publicly available could be an original document aka forgery. Therefore, the only conclusion was that they all originated with an actual paper document that came from Hawaii. He published 4 videos and eventually a book with his findings. Our Xerox work confirmed John’s work completely.
So that is why you are in moderation until you can do actual research instead of repeating the drivel from your blog.
I decided to add another challenge for you. Every Birther who has commented here has failed this one too:
Like all Birthers you want to pretend the WH LFBC is the only evidence that exists demonstrating that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. Of course it isn’t. We have the short form certificate, multiple letters of verification, contemporary birth announcements and the words of someone who talked to Stanley’s physician the day he was born. You mentioned prima facie evidence but demonstrated that you do not understand what it means. The three verification letters alone would all be considered prima facie evidence. So please name for me one case where a birth certificate was presented as evidence in a court and ruled to be a forgery that was completely verified by the issuing authority as Hawaii has done for Obama’s birth records.
In one of my blogs I show all the birth docs for Obama and if I was forced to choose which were authentic (not having the actual docs authenticated in court) they would be the two Lucas docs, the ‘Blaine’ fax machine copy, and the short form first shown after Obama’s nomination. Indeed, all of them are probably authentic except for the Apr 27 2011 Long Form posted on the WH website. And, if the 2011 long form was faked, why? Because there is no such form in existence. Even if Rep. Speaker John Bohner merely accepted without proof the declaration from Hawaii’s state government office that Obama was born in Hawaii, I have good reason not to.
To be thorough, I purchased a legacy copy of Adobe Illustrator used at the time of the Apr 27 2011 PDF posted on the WH website and loaded it on an old XP computer. The 9 ‘layers’ are there as ‘links.’ The Link Properties are still there showing ‘rotation’ and ‘resizing.’ My version of Windows XP doesn’t show the color bit information, but it is a very old computer. My computer from 2011 was more powerful and showed the ‘bit depths,’ some ’embedded art’ in color and others in B&W . . . something that doesn’t happen in a one-layer document.
So, all ‘due diligence’ aside, the ‘links’ showing ‘art’ embedded in the doc with properties of rotation and resizing are there. I’d like to see what a new version of Illustrator would reveal.
As a paralegal, I know what ‘prima facie’ means, in several contexts, and if you look at the bottom of the short form BC it specifies the document is ‘prima facie.’ Here is the actual text: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” (HRS 338-13(b), 338-19)
Here is what that caveat means in the law: “Prima facie is a Latin term that translates to “at first sight” or “based on first impression.” The phrase “prima facie” is used as an adjective or an adverb. As an adjective, prima facie describes a fact or presumption that is sufficient to be regarded as true unless otherwise disproved or rebutted. A prime example of the adjective use of prima facie would be “prima facie evidence.” When used as an adverb, prima facie means that it is regarded as true on first appearance but subject to additional examination or investigation.”
So, the document is a first impression to be ‘taken at face value.’ HOWEVER, “it can likely be hasty and irrational to make a final judgment by only a prima facie examination.” [emphasis added]
In other words, the very fact that all but one of the five documents is ‘witnessed’ by an attending physician (the Blaine document signed but by the check saying ‘other’), points to the Hawaiian statute that supports Obama was born in Kenya on Aug – 8 and the registration entered ‘late’ on Aug – 11 due to days traveled from Kenya to Hawaii. That fact and law alone puts the ‘prima facie’ value of the short form in question, requiring further proof.
Finally, jus sanguinis or citizenship conferred by blood was the ‘general rule’ (as cited from Wong Kim Ark) that defined citizenship not defined by statute, i.e., by NATURAL LAW. Statute was required to remove jus sanguinis nationality, e.g., if the child was born to foreign parents. Here is the earliest statute with the ‘born in the United States clause.’ Civil Rights Act of 1866, preceding the 14th Amendment (1869) — “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” This statute meant, as did the 14th Amendment, that a child born to Chinese parents, for example, remained Chinese . . . until Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark declared ‘jus soli’ citizenship to be a ‘fundamental principle’ and decided to, unconstitutionally, add it to U.S. law!
As any lawyer will tell you, a statute does change the law but does not amend the constitution. The natural born citizenship by blood, jus sanguinis, as known by the framers and in law 108-years hence was not changed by statute or constitutional amendment.
So you believe a fake birth certificate from a convicted forger, who never set foot in Kenya, riddled with errors, showing Ann Dunham very late in her pregnancy in 1961 made a trip half way around the world to give birth in a primitive colony in Africa then came right back to Hawaii after giving birth is a valid birth certificate? That is so preposterous can you see why we mock Birthers and call them morons?
I am trained in legal research and have written memorandums (formal answers, fully-cited, to specific legal questions) and briefed cases (summaries of court decisions for lawyers) which requires specific duty and care to facts and evidence.
I can see from your response that you have no such training.
So, instead of calling you a ‘moron,’ as you call me, I’ll just point out the fact you just lack the training, the years of education required.
As for me, I spent 90 minutes in a lawyer’s office yesterday; a former Democrat Election Registrar, probably a Deputy or Assistant, but performing those legal duties. I was showing him eac.gov and my research on the 2005 Help America Vote Act.
He doesn’t call me a ‘moron,’ so I’ll let you reconsider your response and perhaps, over time, you will have a personal epiphany. That takes time and maturity.
Yet you are so uninformed you don’t even know that one of the two major political parties in the Untied States is the Democratic Party.
Another fail. I think it is time to get serious. I posed two questions:
1. Explain how the AP JPG photo can have a higher resolution if the Obama LFBC PDF was, according to you, created on a computer using Adobe software
2. Name a case where a document that has been verified by the issuing authority was ruled to be a forgery
And no Wong Kim Ark was not not a naturalized citizen. I know the decision is beyond your reading comprehension level but try again.
The camera was set to a higher resolution.
No court has allowed Rule 11 verification of any of the documents. The PDF LFBC is a non-starter because it is not a document per se but a manipulated/altered image file.
I’m about done with you. Stop wasting my time.
That is such a stupid statement it kind of takes my breath away. So I can take a picture of a lower resolution document with a camera and magically create details not visible in the document you are photographing? Even a child wouldn’t say something that stupid. Applewhite must have a magic camera. LOL
The actual answer is there was an original certified copy (actually two) delivered from Hawaii. A packet was put together for the press briefing on 4/27/2011 containing copies of the short form, newly received long form, and letter from Hawaii attesting to the validity and detailing the chain of custody. The same morning a very compressed PDF file that was made by emailing a scan of the same document to someone in the WH and that was what was posted at whitehouse.gov. Applewhite’s photo contains more details because he had the handout which was a copy of the certified LFBC that had not gone through compression. I know this is way over your head but until you admit this is the correct version of events stop trolling my blog. Your posts will go straight to the trash.
Just a final point. Marxist-Muslim Obama . . . that 4/27/2011 press conference ended with a reporter asking if Pakistan was still a U.S. ally. The answer was, ‘Yes.’ What a joke!
Of course, Obama’s mother spent the last years of her life working in Lahore, Pakistan . . . a hotbed of terrorism . . . working with banks funding small business, and maybe terrorism.
Just as much a tragedy as Biden removing sanctions and funds to Iran, which Iran used to fund the Houpties and Hamas in their terrorism in the Red Sea, Jordan, and Israel.
I guess the Biden administration would say Iran is also an ‘ally.’
This is an example of unsupported trash and lies posted by paraleglenm. President Obama is neither Muslim nor a Marxist. Pakistan was our ally throughout Obama and Trump administrations. If he cannot follow the rules he cannot post.
Trump was never going to pay Obama anything. He is lying, cheating, criminal rapist. I think you are wrong about Corsi. He went to Kenya on a tourist visa and they deported him when they found out what he was up to. BTW Kenya has issued a statement saying Obama was not born there. So you know what you can do with your little forger Lucas Smith’s POS certificate.
How would you feel if a political attack was made on you using women of questionable character claiming ‘something happened’ decades previous? There is no way to prove your innocence, no proof it did happen, and when you call one accuser a ‘liar’ she successfully sues you for slander . . . even when the original court refused to entertain her rape/assault claims.
As for Corsi, he was detained and any future investigations in Mombasa blocked, the records sealed. What was Obama trying to hide?
The documents, all of them, are prima facie evidence subject to authentication, a process started but blocked by politically corrupted judges.
Finally, all that means nothing. When the framers wrote the presidential eligibility requirements the constitution specified a ‘natural born citizen,’ which is not a citizenship defined or created by statute, but inherited from a U.S. citizen father. A U.S. citizen father was required for 108-years until the unconstitutional creation of ‘birthright citizenship’ in Wong Kim Ark. Even the 14th Amendment (Cf. 1866 Civil Rights Act) denied ‘native born citizenship’ if the child had a foreign father.
The rapist, criminal liar Trump had a chance to testify under oath in the first trial (actually E. Jean Carrol v Trump II) that he didn’t rape or molest Ms Carrol but he chose not to. Instead he defamed her outside the court and on social media. A juror of his peers unanimously ruled he committed sexual assault. Of course the fact he said he routinely grabbed women’s genitals and got away with it could have played a part too.
“Jury of his peer . . .”
You are joking.
Actually I am. The folks who found this criminal, foul smelling, lying, rapist liable are much better people than him. Oh wait were they the wrong color like Obama was or something? Is that what you are saying?
So, there was evidence he raped, fondled, paid off . . . violated FEC laws . . . no evidence, just liars coming forward at a time convenient to interfere with an election.
FEC? FEC approved the accounting of Cohen’s NDA, which Trump had nothing to do with. That was discretion of his NY attorney and accountants.
New York City? Like many inner city precincts, the votes are 90% against Trump. So, the jury in these jurisdictions are basically mini-electors, voting against Trump once again, regardless of no law broken, no evidence.
Funny thing. Now that the trial is on we are seeing different evidence coming out on the payoffs to Karen MacDougal and Stormy Daniels. It was the Trump FEC and the USAG that Trump had ‘on his pocket” who failed to file charges. Everything was being done to protect the Boss and his campaign.
.
If you are so trained, you know a simple legal concept, chain of custody.
The Lucas Smith BC has no chain of custody. The one presented by Obama did, provided by the state of Hawaii.
The Lucas doc is an ‘official’ document stamped and signed, but required authentication to be evidence in a court of law. The U.S. court, I think in the Orly Taitz case, refused to make contact with a Kenyan court of proper jurisdiction to authenticate. The Obama State Department made it impossible for investigators to make direct contact with the Mombasa Vital Records department, which to some people with brains would be called a ‘clue.’
As for the PDF LFBC, it is automatically disqualified as it was altered. The original still has to be produced and authenticated. In the past, the Hawaiian governor investigated and was told there was no birth certificate from any Hawaiian hospital.
Anyway, the birth certificate is a red herring, a smoke screen for the actual legal issue. Having a foreign father, not a U.S. citizen, disqualified Obama (and Haley, Harris, Cruz) from Article II eligibility.
Well that was a massive failure. You failed to even address how the AP photo had details at a finer resolution than a document you claim was the original, you know the “forged” WH LFBC PDF. You are still running windows XP on an old computer and are trying to opine of computer graphics? You are so far over your skis it isn’t even funny.
You are confusing the general legal term prima facie with what is actually in the US Constitution and US code for self authenticating documents. All of Obama’s original documents from Hawaii and the Hawaii letters of verification and are self authenticating in any court of law. Some schmuck examining a compressed file copy of the actual document published on a web page would be laughed out of court as an expert witness. The documents would stand. No court actually needed to see a certified copy because the cases were nonsense. That is exactly what happened when Orly tried to bring in her so called expert Paul Irey. He became the butt of jokes.
The final say on the authenticity of a self authenticating document is the issuing authority. In the case of Obama’s birth records it is the state of Hawaii. You can read what they said:
Click to access News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
I asked paralegalnm what kind of citizen was Wong Kim Ark Natural born on naturalized. Those are the only choices. Of course as I expected he could not answer the question honestly. I have never found a Birther who would. He instead wrote:
Of course the truth is that Wong Kim Ark could not become a naturalized citizen by law since the Chinese Exclusion Acts prevented someone of Chinese heritage from naturalizing. The court never found them to be unconstitutional and mentioned them in this very case:
So the court said that had he not been a citizen at birth he would be subject to deportation and this implies of course his parents could not naturalize so he could not be a citizen at birth through his parents nor could he naturalize later. His only path to citizenship was to be natural born by birth in California.
One of the leading attorneys in the United States at the time of Wong Kim Ark, William Dameron Guthrie, wrote about the decision:
Of course the government in opposition in WKA also wrote about the horrors that ruling in favor of WKA it would make Chinese born on US soil eligible to become president some day.
So paralegalnm you are completely wrong. Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen and every honest person knows it.
Ignorant and dishonest trolls like paraleaglenm are the reason you cannot have an honest discussion with either Birthers or Trumpers on the internet or anywhere else for that matter.
paraleaglenm still cannot explain how Scott Applewhite’s photo contains more detail when according to his own lie what Applewhite photographed must have been a printout of a lower resolution document. For your information when I contacted Mr. Applewhite he said his camera was an expensive 40 megapixel model. Now he has also included slandering Ann Dunham’s with baseless claims her work in Pakistan assisting women with micro-financing was actually assisting terrorists.
Edit: This discussion about the J. Scott Applewhite AP photo, the WH LFBC PDF file, and some other copies of the Obama long form birth certificates got me thinking that I could do an article about the different versions of the LFBC that were available from 4/27/2011 and after that together prove that there had to be an original paper document. We haven’t even gone into the Savannah Guthrie photo of one of the actual certified copies that Hawaii issued just before the release of the other photos.
Now in 2011 John Woodman did some outstanding research on the LFBC birth certificate controversy and produced 4 YouTube videos and eventually a book on the subject. John was a conservative who had voted solidly Republican for most of his life. He saw the almost immediate uproar that ensued when people started using pirated copies of Adobe Illustrator to analyze the PDF file posted by the White House and seeing things like weird layers. John though if he could actually prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this file had been forged he would have earned fame and wealth.
Unfortunately, Mr. Woodman had one fatal flaw not present in most conservatives and any Trumpers, he was honest. John was a computer guy who knew computers inside and out and when he dove into a project he went deep. He spent most of the summer analyzing not just the PDF file but all the available evidence.
Eventually John reached the conclusion that the PDF anomalies were the result of some compression software a yet unknown but were the result of taking an image and compressing it aggressively to create a small file for posting on the internet. He concluded that because the AP photo could absolutely not have been a photo of a printout of the PDF file that there had to be an original document.
I am not doing justice to Mr. Woodman’s research in a paragraph that was just a brief summary. he also started a blog and eventually looked at other Birther theories like the two citizen parent definition of NBC that Birther’s invented.
In the article I will examine the workflow that produced the known copies of the Obama long form Hawaii certificate. If I choose to wrote it that is.
As for paraleaglenm… he is a troll who will never listen to reason. If you have followed Birthers like I have you run into these types. They are so dishonest that at some point you have to take away their ability to waste your time. When they show in 20 comments they cannot be honest it’s time to pull the plug.