Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Arus808]

What are you going to do then?

He'll trot out the Leo Donofrio/Mario Apuzo/Susan Daniels/Linda Jordan/Tracy Wells defense that he isn't an NBC because his father was Kenyan (not an American Citizen) at the time of his birth. (aka The Two citizen Parents non-existent requirement)

It goes around in circles.

 

[Mudcat]

He'll trot out the Leo Donofrio/Mario Apuzo/Susan Daniels/Linda Jordan/Tracy Wells defense that he isn't an NBC because his father was Kenyan (not an American Citizen) at the time of his birth. (aka The Two citizen Parents non-existent requirement)

It goes around in circles.

Last I heard* it was not necessary to have even one parent be an American citizen to be a Naturally Born Citizen, which makes that even more sad.

^{*I don't know the first thing about citizenship laws, so I could be wrong.}

 

[Arus808]

Last I heard* it was not necessary to have even one parent be an American citizen to be a Naturally Born Citizen, which makes that even more sad.

^{*I don't know the first thing about citizenship laws, so I could be wrong.}

This basically lays out who is a citizen from birth:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

 

[JayUtah]

It goes around in circles.

By intent, and of necessity for Prey, because he has specifically and emphatically refused to read any of the preceding portion of the thread. Therefore we must hold every Birther's hand.

 

[Mudcat]

This basically lays out who is a citizen from birth:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

Apparently I was right. Damn, this is a particularly stupid Conspiracy Theory.

 

[JayUtah]

You'd need to provide evidence that causes reasonable doubt that it's an original and unaltered document first, don't you think?

No. Klayman's interpretation of the relevant law is garbage. The certification by the issuing authority removes any legal standing for challenge on the basis of ambiguity or inauthenticity. For all practical legal purposes, there is no further question regarding the authenticity of Barack Obama's birth certificate. "Reasonable doubt," or any other standard of proof, is simply irrelevant at this point.

In purely evidentiary terms, there is no credible case for forgery. The argument is the standard conspiracy theory failure: ignorant and wrong expectations set up as the gold standard for truth, with wild handwaving claims that try to shift the burden of proof. No court in the land has accepted the MSCO "evidence" as even suggestive of suspicion.

 

[Moss]

Oh, we are back here already? I wondered if this current round would manage to make a slight trip around the block to get some beer and fries.

 

[Straw Man]

Oh, we are back here already? I wondered if this current round would manage to make a slight trip around the block to get some beer and fries.

No, just lots and lots of baloney.

 

[Mudcat]

No. Klayman's interpretation of the relevant law is garbage. The certification by the issuing authority removes any legal standing for challenge on the basis of ambiguity or inauthenticity. For all practical legal purposes, there is no further question regarding the authenticity of Barack Obama's birth certificate. "Reasonable doubt," or any other standard of proof, is simply irrelevant at this point.

In purely evidentiary terms, there is no credible case for forgery. The argument is the standard conspiracy theory failure: ignorant and wrong expectations set up as the gold standard for truth, with wild handwaving claims that try to shift the burden of proof. No court in the land has accepted the MSCO "evidence" as even suggestive of suspicion.

I see, thank you. Your point has probably already been made, but I didn't feel like wading through 100+ pages of the stupidest Conspiract Theory in the history of the term. So thank you for sparing me.

Oh, we are back here already? I wondered if this current round would manage to make a slight trip around the block to get some beer and fries.

Beer and fries? I thought it was beer and peanuts usually?

 

[Moss]

I see, thank you. Your point has probably already been made, but I didn't feel like wading through 100+ pages of the stupidest Conspiract Theory in the history of the term. So thank you for sparing me.



Beer and fries? I thought it was beer and peanuts usually?

I'm fine with that, unless someone goes Librarian poo because of the peanuts.
But let us keep well away from Weißwurst and Sauerkraut.

 

[Chaos]

I'm fine with that, unless someone goes Librarian poo because of the peanuts.
But let us keep well away from Weißwurst and Sauerkraut.

I don´t think even Bavarians are crazy enough to each Weißwurst with Sauerkraut. Weißwurst is usually served with Laugenbrezeln.

 

[Moss]

I don´t think even Bavarians are crazy enough to each Weißwurst with Sauerkraut. Weißwurst is usually served with Laugenbrezeln.

Well, Weißwurst and Brezn are okay, the Weißwurst/Sauerkraut-Combo is actually a Silesian abomination.

 

[sts60]

...has no authority to make laws, and a fairly dismal record of interpreting them.

... and is apparently yet another anti-American nut trampling on states' rights and the Constitution.

At least he's not trolling this particular forum. Well, at least not under his real name. If "Klayman" really is his name, for which he cannot offer 100% proof anyway.

 

[abaddon]

Agreed.

Thank you.

This is why I asked Robert early on to describe all the parameters and settings that affected what a PDF contains. I asked twice and he never answered.

Clearly, he has no idea. But I did try to be gentle. The PLRM is aat least somewhat understandable to the casual reader.

The answer is "practically infinite," meaning a large enough number to preclude exhaustive investigation. This is not, however, why Arpaio's toy investigation is legally inadmissible. It is, however, why it's useless for any practical evidentiary use.

And having written software which produces PDF output, I know how odd it is. Bob does not.

Not even the same paper on the same scanner and computer using the same settings would be guaranteed to produce the same PDF. Small factors such as the fine alignment of the paper on the scanner bed have an observable effect. Why? Because, for example, PDF optimizers can attempt to correct what they recognize as alignment errors. Thus they replace objects in the original PDF with new objects that are transformations (i.e., scaling, nudging, or rotation) of previous elements. If, for example, the document was more perfectly aligned on the scanner bed, the optimizer might not recognize it as something that needs adjustment. Therefore the optimized PDF won't have those adjustments.

LOL, I was going to go there but you beat me to it.

This is something we see all the time in the field of computing for science and engineering, as we collect and measure data from the real world. The care with which we obtain that data affects the behavior of downstream algorithms, often to a nonlinear extent.

Laymans translation: scan crud in, get crud out.

Yes, Robert will just try to handwave these facts away as "more techno-babble from Jay," but of course what he's really saying by that is, "I don't understand a single word Jay said, and I can't refute it." And that's why experts, not Robert, make the important decisions and acquire credibility.

Yup, Bob will make that attempt. I suspect he is seen here for what he is.

I.e., what happens several times a semester in any computer science curriculum. As a former teacher of college engineering and computer science courses, I can attest that if you get two solutions that behave suitably alike, that's evidence the students may have collaborated and you should look more closely for evidence of outright cheating. The natural condition is for solutions to differ markedly.

In a way, I miss teaching, but in a way, I don't.

Feel free to get into the technicalities with me. I love it, because it's part of my profession, and Robert can't figure those arguments and so gets visibly flustered.

I think not here, Bob is in deep enough as it is. That being said, I am game, just unwilling to see Bob drown here.

The notion of PDF, PS, and other page description languages as languages is vital. I mention one of the subjects I taught was computer graphics, which is intensely fun -- especially if you're teaching at the university that produced the people who went on to found Evans and Sutherland, Pixar, and Adobe. And one of the assignments was indeed to hand-write programs in Postscript and PDF.

And thus why I ask if he understand the significance that it is an interpreted language.

I remember one student wrote a program, in Postscript, to generate fractals as output. It was a very tiny program, as far as PS files go, and just for bleeps and giggles I ran it on our department printer -- took three hours to run and produced gorgeous device-resolution output. Now an equivalent PS file (in terms of visual output) could have been written simply as an embedded bitmap. Or in any number of ways, programmatically. The field is literally wide open, when you have a Turing-complete programming language to work in.

Gosh, PS, I loved it well.

The Birthers loved technicalities when they thought the technicalities were on their side. It was fun to listen to them foam about "layers" and "bit masks" as if they suddenly knew what these things were. Nowadays it's hard to get a Birther to talk about them. Why? Because the world saw them shoot themselves in the foot. "PDFs from scanned documents ever only contain the one layer!" they said. And after quickly realizing that that was a most inexpert position from which to argue, they've been backpedaling ever since and hoping the technical argument would go away.

For those of us that learned page descriptions the hard way, the likes of RP are sooooo wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

... and is apparently yet another anti-American nut trampling on states' rights and the Constitution.

No, just yet another straw-grasping attempt from Birthers to demand access to the paper original. Because Hawaii law allows birth certificates to be amended (e.g., in the case of error) or filed late, Klayman theorizes this is what was done to Obama's certificate. Upon this speculation he advances the legal theory that an administrative or judicial body must therefore have access to the paper original in order to assess its "probative value." However there is no such provision in Hawaii law, and the law further requires that altered or late birth certificates be reported as such.

Klayman's failed strategy merely speculates that the Obama certificate falls under its auspices. There is no evidence that it does, and the absence of such evidence is assertive under statute. It further speculates that the only means of determining "probative value" requires an inspection of the original paper document, but in fact there is no such provision; the body in question may set its own standard for probative validity and its own methods for determining it. So yes, in that sense he is thumbing his nose at Hawaii's state sovereignty. But in a purely factual sense, he is proposing his own narrow solution to a trumped-up problem, which coincidentally demands more invasive access to vital records.

 

[Ladewig]

Argumentum ad why do you hate Americium.

Really?
No one is going to say "why would anyone hate the 95th element of the Period Table"?

I was hoping people were going to give this thread the level of respect that it deserves.

 

[Paul]

I was hoping people were going to give this thread the level of respect that it deserves.

Unfortunately kitten chilli is off limits now.

 

[JayUtah]

And having written software which produces PDF output, I know how odd it is. Bob does not.

Indeed, the indirection and the versioned objects are a little different than most tagged-content container formats (e.g., .WAV). And putting the object cross-reference at the end is helpful to PDF producers, but a pain in the you-know-what for PDF renderers.

The other huge difference that Robert may never grasp is the dual nature of PDF files as flat containers of objects that are hierarchically organized only by data semantics.

Yup, Bob will make that attempt. I suspect he is seen here for what he is.

We have the poll numbers to prove it. Most conspiracy theorists try to dismiss valid expertise as if the experts are a small minority of charlatans merely spewing techno-babble, when in fact the conspiracy theorist is the minority who doesn't understand the details. The moral is that if you're in for a technical penny, you'd better be in for the technical pound because otherwise you'll be in over your head in no time.

In a way, I miss teaching, but in a way, I don't.

I prefer to do rather than to teach, but apparently I'm good at teaching and people want me to do it. When I retire from the industry, I'll teach.

And thus why I ask if he understand the significance that it is an interpreted language.

And why he avoided the question. He wants to make it sound like 1,200 attempts is a reasonably good effort at perfectly duplicating the Obama PDF. When in fact it's closer to the notion of putting 10 people in a room, asking them to write a story about racism and a false accusation of rape, and expecting one of them to reproduce To Kill a Mockingbird verbatim.

For those of us that learned page descriptions the hard way, the likes of RP are sooooo wrong.

People who are bluffing their way through an argument generally don't accept the possibility that they are that wrong. They figure the people who really know the topic merely know just a little bit more than they, and along the same lines. They don't realize that a learned and experienced approach to the topic produces an understanding so very far removed from their intuitive conjecture. This is true here, and it is also true in photographic interpretation. People say, "Well, so-and-so can't be that far off." When in fact they're not even in the same room.

 

[JayUtah]

Really?
No one is going to say "why would anyone hate the 95th element of the Period Table"?

Honestly I was just enjoying the Latin and didn't make the leap into chemistry.

 

[Ranb]

Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch Weighs in on Obama Birth Fraud

Klayman said the only Hawaii statute allowing birth certificates “to be non-legally binding” is the law regarding “late” or “altered” certificates, which states: “The probative value of a ‘late’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.”

Where is the evidence that Obama's birth certificate is non legally binding or late?

“Unless and until Mr. Obama’s original birth record, on file with the Department of Health in Hawaii, is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative body or official, it cannot legally be considered to have probative value. In other words … it cannot stand alone without further corroboration, as required by an ‘administrative body or official,” Klayman wrote.

Can you name any other American citizen who has had to meet this burden of proof? I didn't when I used a BC to obtain my passport. I don't think any of the other presidents had to either when they went on the ballot.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/obama-lawyer-warned-against-certifying-eligibility/?cat_orig=us
http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/09/BauerLetter.pdf

That link is stupid. It refers to HRS 338-18; the list of people who can receive a copy of a birth certificate from Hawaii. I do not think that AZ Secretary of State Ken Bennett is on that list. This is easy to understand, why can't Klayman get it?

Ranb