Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
That Zebest is an expert is irrelevant to the evidence.
Click to expand...

Then why did you go back and edit your post mentioning her findings, to include a paragraph extolling her expertise? You thought it was relevant when you called Zebest "Jay's worst nightmare." Now explain why it suddenly stopped being relevant.

This is your standard approach to expert testimony. You tell us these people are highly qualified and that we have to respect their opinion. But then when it's discovered just how incompetent they are, you drop them like a hot potato but still expect us still to respect their opinions, as if they existed somehow independently of the expert. In expert testimony, the expert opinion is the evidence. Without the expertise, the evidentiary value evaporates and the opinion is equivalent to any other layman's.

No one has been able to replicate the type of layers betrayed by the document in any automated program.
Click to expand...

Straw man, and ad hoc revision. Zebest's original claim was that in a true scanned document there should be only one layer. But she was very wrong. There have been countless demonstrations of multiple layers arising from scanning. Now the Birthers are in a fallback position, admitting that layers indeed arise from scanning, but now demand that the exact pattern of layers be demonstrated.

Sorry, after your "expert" has spoken you do not get to move the goalposts.

No one has been able to prove it to be authentic.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant; the PDF was not used to certify Obama's eligibility. It is not part of the chain of evidence.

Further, the burden of proof is always on claims of forgery.

Finally, it has been certified by the issuing authority in a separate statement. Full Faith and Credit means any subsequent investigation lacks standing, which is why Arpaio must proceed using only private donations.
 
Robert Prey said:
A conclusion unsupported by any facts.
Click to expand...

False. The Birthers moved to have the case decided on its merits, which meant hearing the evidence. The statement that the judge examined the evidence and found it "unpersuasive" is a direct quote from the ruling.

They presented their case as they would have in a regular trial. But it remained unconvincing even without cross examination.
 
Robert Prey said:
That's what he claimed normally happens.
Click to expand...

Do not put words in my mouth.

I stated that a party in a lawsuit is entitled to move for default judgment if the opponent does not answer or appear. Whether the appearing party so moves is a matter of its own discretion. And whether the judge grants the motion is again up to judicial discretion. This is especially the case here because the judge denied the defense motion not to be obliged to appear. The defense in this case was clearly in default.

However the plaintiffs in this case did not move for default judgment. The reason is because a default judgment has practically no value as precedent, precisely because no evidence is heard. No subsequent rulings on matters of fact or law are possible on the basis of such a case because no such deliberations occur. By moving to have the case heard on its merits, the plaintiffs set the stage for the rulings to have legal value and to be useful in other cases in other states, or at the federal level. Evidentiary rulings and consideration also become relevant. It is a strong strategy where new legal ground is being broken.

However the plaintiffs naturally assumed the case would win on its merits unopposed. They obviously believed it would likely win even if opposed, otherwise they would have not brought suit. Armed with this reasonable -- if comically misguided -- assumption, they presented their evidence hoping to walk away with a ruling and precedent that could apply elsewhere. Instead they were handed a dismal defeat.

But to believe he actually would have ruled against the President requires a high degree of naivete.
Click to expand...

So all these Birther lawsuits are automatically fruitless because only a naive person would believe a judge could ever rule against the President? Understanding that the prevailing party in a lawsuit is entitled to be awarded the cost of his attorney's fees, and that those bringing suit against the President and losing would be obliged to pay for the President's legal defense in addition to bearing their own cost, what is the point -- in your mind -- of filing all these lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility?
 
ANTPogo said:
...


False [referring to claim that Zebest claims of fraud in the Obama birth certificate PDF had not been debunked]. Nathan Golding of National Review Online did it.

...
Click to expand...

Link to the Golding article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/265767/pdf-layers-obamas-birth-certificate-nathan-goulding

Link to a discussion of PDF layers in a blog:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/428-After-Birth.html

Overview:
Software that creates PDF files from scans can be set up in various ways, some of which lead to PDF files where image information is stored in layers. There were nine layers in the PDF file of the Obama birth certificate. The first layer was a JPEG image and the eight other layers were bit masks. The purpose of the bit masks is to isolate detail that is in a particular color (in this case black) so as to allow the masked area to be rendered without any JPEG distortion. The blog entry linked to above contains images of all the layers of the birth certificate PDF.

Based on meta data contained within the file the software used to generate the PDF file was: "Mac OS X 10.6.7 Quartz PDFContext".

There is no indication of fraud in the way the PDF file was created (and claims to the contrary look bizarrely stupid to me).
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Do not put words in my mouth.

I stated that a party in a lawsuit is entitled to move for default judgment if the opponent does not answer or appear. Whether the appearing party so moves is a matter of its own discretion. And whether the judge grants the motion is again up to judicial discretion. This is especially the case here because the judge denied the defense motion not to be obliged to appear. The defense in this case was clearly in default.

However the plaintiffs in this case did not move for default judgment. The reason is because a default judgment has practically no value as precedent, precisely because no evidence is heard. No subsequent rulings on matters of fact or law are possible on the basis of such a case because no such deliberations occur. By moving to have the case heard on its merits, the plaintiffs set the stage for the rulings to have legal value and to be useful in other cases in other states, or at the federal level. Evidentiary rulings and consideration also become relevant. It is a strong strategy where new legal ground is being broken.

However the plaintiffs naturally assumed the case would win on its merits unopposed. They obviously believed it would likely win even if opposed, otherwise they would have not brought suit. Armed with this reasonable -- if comically misguided -- assumption, they presented their evidence hoping to walk away with a ruling and precedent that could apply elsewhere. Instead they were handed a dismal defeat.



So all these Birther lawsuits are automatically fruitless because only a naive person would believe a judge could ever rule against the President? Understanding that the prevailing party in a lawsuit is entitled to be awarded the cost of his attorney's fees, and that those bringing suit against the President and losing would be obliged to pay for the President's legal defense in addition to bearing their own cost, what is the point -- in your mind -- of filing all these lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility?
Click to expand...

Naivete.
 
JayUtah said:
Then why did you go back and edit your post mentioning her findings, to include a paragraph extolling her expertise? You thought it was relevant when you called Zebest "Jay's worst nightmare." Now explain why it suddenly stopped being relevant.

This is your standard approach to expert testimony. You tell us these people are highly qualified and that we have to respect their opinion. But then when it's discovered just how incompetent they are, you drop them like a hot potato but still expect us still to respect their opinions, as if they existed somehow independently of the expert. In expert testimony, the expert opinion is the evidence. Without the expertise, the evidentiary value evaporates and the opinion is equivalent to any other layman's.



Straw man, and ad hoc revision. Zebest's original claim was that in a true scanned document there should be only one layer. But she was very wrong. There have been countless demonstrations of multiple layers arising from scanning. Now the Birthers are in a fallback position, admitting that layers indeed arise from scanning, but now demand that the exact pattern of layers be demonstrated.

Sorry, after your "expert" has spoken you do not get to move the goalposts.



Irrelevant; the PDF was not used to certify Obama's eligibility. It is not part of the chain of evidence.

Further, the burden of proof is always on claims of forgery.

Finally, it has been certified by the issuing authority in a separate statement. Full Faith and Credit means any subsequent investigation lacks standing, which is why Arpaio must proceed using only private donations.
Click to expand...

Funny how all these allegedly authentic BC copes suddenly are available, when they woudn't allow Gov. Ambercrombie to even view one.
 
JayUtah said:
Nonsense. The whys and wherefores are crucial. Your theory requires the alleged conspirators to be simultaneously very crafty and powerful, yet also very stupid and bungling. Answer the question.
Click to expand...

More fallacious reasoning (false dilemma) from the usual source.
 
Border Reiver said:
No they don't.

Link

And for the clicking impaired:

"There also were public announcements of Obama's birth published in Hawaii newspapers shortly after his birth in 1961 (placed there not by his family, as Trump suggests, but based on official state records.) And the state's top vital records official, Dr. Chiyome Leinaala Fukino, director of the Hawaii Department of Health, issued a statement in 2009 stating that she had "seen the original vital records maintained on file" and that those records, which are confidential under state law, verify that "Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen." "
Click to expand...

"Vital Records"???? But that could be a Declaration of Birth and not a Birth Certificate. Whatever she claims, it strains credulity why such records could not even be viewed by the Governor.
 
Robert Prey said:
"Vital Records"???? But that could be a Declaration of Birth and not a Birth Certificate. Whatever she claims, it strains credulity why such records could not even be viewed by the Governor.
Click to expand...

So explain on what grounds the records would be made available for the Governor.

You of course expect your own records to be viewed by such people with out question?
 
Robert Prey said:
Funny how all these allegedly authentic BC copes suddenly are available, when they woudn't allow Gov. Ambercrombie to even view one.
Click to expand...

Because Governor Abercrombie was not permitted by state law to view or obtain a copy of Obama's birth certificate, while Obama himself was.

Robert Prey said:
"Vital Records"???? But that could be a Declaration of Birth and not a Birth Certificate.
Click to expand...

Except it wasn't. It was an actual birth certificate, signed by the attending obstetrician at Kapiolani and everything.

Whatever she claims, it strains credulity why such records could not even be viewed by the Governor.
Click to expand...

No, it's very clearly laid out in Hawaiian state law.

Robert Prey said:
Because everybody's got to to be someplace.
Click to expand...

And Stanley Ann Dunham was in Honolulu, Hawaii.
 
ANTPogo said:
Because Governor Abercrombie was not permitted by state law to view or obtain a copy of Obama's birth certificate, while Obama himself was.

Except it wasn't. It was an actual birth certificate, signed by the attending obstetrician at Kapiolani and everything.

.
Click to expand...

How do you know that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom