I wasn't aware that "prominent Englishman" necessarily gave one suitable qualifications to comment on American constitutional law and the forensic authentication of documents. Monckton also holds a number of controversial views and has used his influence to browbeat scientists who disagree with them. But please, if you want to cite him in support of your case, by all means do so. The credibility of your sources to date would not be materially affected by it.
Translation: "If you don't agree with me, you're stupid." As a matter of fact, a vast number of highly intelligent, well informed, people are not convinced by birther nonsense and can cite good reasons why. Sorry, you don't get to browbeat people who disagree with you.
No, like all Birthers he simply throws out the established statutory methods of certifying candidates for office and substitutes his own. He's the invited speaker at a small gathering of Tea Party members. He offers up the standard FUD about a constitutional crisis, omitting that the relevant authorities have already determined Obama's eligibility. What are we to say about arguments that work only when prefaced by appropriate fear-mongering? He's so audacious as to say that until the question is "resolved," Obama cannot govern effectively. That rhetoric is simply ludicrous in the face of the near-frantic efforts of Birthers these days to have their lost cases reconsidered. It's the Birthers who won't let the thing go, so let their hypocrisy speak for itself.
Birthers don't argue for applying the standard practice; they argue for special practices they invent. The sum total of his argument is, "In Britain we do it differently." Whoop-de-doo. That has zero relevance for whether common, accepted, and authorized practices have been followed in the United States to certify the President's birthplace. He's followed the same tired line of Birther reasoning that's been around for three years: "We don't care what the law is, we want you to follow our prescription for how to verify someone's birthplace."
His Lordship can mock Hawaii's laws all he wants, but the denial of access to original vital records to all but officers of relevant bureau, for the purpose of protecting them against such things as damage and wear, is enshrined as the first sentence of section 338-18 of the Hawaii State Code. Monckton's mockery does not change the fact that under the law, authorized parties are entitled to at most a certified copy of a vital record.
Long ago refuted: you don't get to make up new rules that suit your agenda.
Well for starters he says, "It's not for me, to tell you as a non-expert, that [Obama's birth cerfificate] is not [genuine]." (6:20, emphasis mine) He's not an expert in the forensic authentication of documents, and people who are experts have already spoken to that point.
And no, he himself does not prove that the birth certificate (in any form) is a fraud. He doesn't even suggest how it might be proven a fraud. No, instead he himself infers that it "must" be a fraud on no stronger grounds than his assertion that the officials in question do not do what he says should be done were it genuine. That's exactly what it means to beg the question, and it is the fallacy the Birthers have been committing for going on three years now.
What's his evidence of forgery? He watched a YouTube clip of Joe Arpaio's press conference. Yes, that's all he does: he parrots our dear sheriff uncritically.
Not just uncritically -- he grossly misrepresents Arpaio's obvious zeal in furthering his investigation of Obama, making His Lordship at best a highly biased purveyor of hearsay. In any case that's very old news. The "forensic" examination of the PDF is neither relevant (since it wasn't the version used to certify Obama's eligibility) nor valid since real experts (not Arpaio's shills) have subsequently conclusively debunked his fumbling efforts to discredit the PDF.
And because you refuse to familiarize yourself with the present state of the debate, we have to go through it all again for you.
No, he commits yet another standard Birther error: that of assuming the authentication pertinent to his certification as eligible to the office of President must derive from the PDF copy. To that end he simply produces his own doctored copy of the PDF, complete with the (inauthentic) reproduction of the seal.
Nor can Lord Monckton produce an explicit authentication of his certificate from the registrar of vital records in Hawaii. So no, he has not in the least duplicated what Birthers claim has been done in Obama's case.
Just because he is a peer doesn't mean he isn't also wrong. His reading of the law is wrong and has been addressed by competent American legal authority. Upon that reading of the law hangs his inference of forgery, so amen to that. He has no direct proof; he simply directs you to Joe Arpaio, whose allegations were addressed long before His Lordship took the podium in that clip.
