Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Straw Man]

Have we ever established why anything beyond the original COLB was even necessary?

I have yet to hear any Birther articulate a reason why that original one was not legally sufficient.

Because access to the original is prohibited.

By law. So I call....

Baloney.

hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

 

[A'isha]

Because access to the original is prohibited.

Access to everyone's original is prohibited. Even yours.

 

[JayUtah]

Your techno-babble double talk has been weighed in the balance of common sense and found wanting.

You wish. You simply can't follow the argument, can you? You are the one who tried to make this a technical argument. It's not my fault you want to run back to simplistic tabloid nonsense when you get your head handed to you.

How many law suits have the Birthers filed on the basis of your so-called experts? How many have they won?

 

[JayUtah]

Scanners don't have x-ray vision.

You're the only one claiming they do. The rest of us understand how optimized PDFs work, especially how elements of one object must be copied in some cases to other objects to resolve rendering order indeterminacy.

Silly Robert, thinks he's looking at a raw scanner image...

 

[Straw Man]

Yeah. Scanners don't have x-ray vision. Next question.

Display of technical ignorance.

Why have you used the 'Welcome to Kenya' sign as evidence of BHOII's birth place as Kenya?

 

[Robert Prey]

You wish. You simply can't follow the argument, can you? You are the one who tried to make this a technical argument. It's not my fault you want to run back to simplistic tabloid nonsense when you get your head handed to you.

How many law suits have the Birthers filed on the basis of your so-called experts? How many have they won?

Tom Harrison is a computer expert, not a tabloid. And the notion that any court is going to depose a sitting president no matter what the evidence, is the ultimate naivete, not that any court has been able to even view the original document which is the one and only test of the truth.

 

[Straw Man]

Tom Harrison is a WorldNutDaily certified computer expert.....

ftfy

Would you care to enlighten us with his qualifications in the use of any Adobe software?

 

[JayUtah]

Tom Harrison is a computer expert...

How would you know?

I gave you a technical response to that nonsense. But you understand neither the tabloid's accusation nor my response. You just wield these people unthinkingly like a club. Not everyone is so naive.

And the notion that any court is going to depose a sitting president...

Then explain why the Birthers keep trying to file lawsuits to do just that. Clearly your masters don't believe it's futile.

...not that any court has been able to even view the original document...

Irrelevant. Your case as it stands against the PDF file has been rejected. There is no technically valid challenge to it. There is no technically valid challenge to any of the other copies. Just a bunch of pseudo-experts who can't qualify to a court. Your assertion that the question of authenticity can only be satisfied by examining the paper original has no legal basis, no technical justification, and is just a ploy to prolong the inevitable.

...which is the one and only test of the truth.

Made-up Birther requirement.

 

[JayUtah]

Would you care to enlighten us with his qualifications in the use of any Adobe software?

He's just another graphic artist like Mara Zebest. Zero training or qualification in image processing, image file formats, or forensic document examination. Birthers simply talk about "computer experts" because a lot of people can sort of fall into that category.

 

[Mudcat]

You mean Barack Hussein Obama was not born in Kenya? But the Kenyan Ambassador to the US says he was born in Kenya.

Loaded question. Barack Hussein Obama II was not born in Kenya. Barack Hussein Obama SR, on the other hand, was.

Tom Harrison is a computer expert, not a tabloid.

Show me his credentials, because I haven't seen them.

Not that any court has been able to even view the original document which is the one and only test of the truth.

Why would a court even need to? The document has been produced and certified by the relevant authorities. Do you have any legitimate reason to doubt those authorities?

 

[tsig]

Tom Harrison is a computer expert, not a tabloid. And the notion that any court is going to depose a sitting president no matter what the evidence, is the ultimate naivete, not that any court has been able to even view the original document which is the one and only test of the truth.

If they showed you the original how would you know it was the original?

 

[jhunter1163]

Thread closed for cleanout. When it is reopened, it will likely be on moderated status.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[jhunter1163]

Thread reopened on moderated status, where it will likely remain.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Straw Man]

Tom Harrison is a computer expert, not a tabloid.

Please list his qualifications in refuting the PDF of BHOII's COLB.

And the notion that any court is going to depose a sitting president no matter what the evidence, is the ultimate naivete

Do you have proof that this is the case?

not that any court has been able to even view the original document which is the one and only test of the truth.

Again, this falls into the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. Is the Constitution something Birthers would like to switch off and on at will?

 

[Robrob]

And the notion that any court is going to depose a sitting president no matter what the evidence

Opinion presented as fact.

not that any court has been able to even view the original document

Plenty of others have, including the Hawaiian authorities who assert its authenticity.

which is the one and only test of the truth.

Please feel free to provide evidence for that assertion.

 

[BazBear]

Tom Harrison is a computer expert, not a tabloid. And the notion that any court is going to depose a sitting president no matter what the evidence, is the ultimate naivete, not that any court has been able to even view the original document which is the one and only test of the truth.

Again you show either your lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution, or your ability to disregard it as it suits your agenda. No court can depose a sitting president. The only avenue to remove a sitting president is impeachment and conviction by Congress.

 

[KDLarsen]

Opinion presented as fact.

Even more hilarious considering, say, United States v. Nixon or the Impeachment of Bill Clinton (which was back when the US political was less partisan than it is today).

 

[JayUtah]

Again, this falls into the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. Is the Constitution something Birthers would like to switch off and on at will?

I'm still waiting for a legal theory that validates the Birther position at all. The Birther argument seems to be, "Full Faith and Credit doesn't count when there is a question of forgery." What they don't seem to realize is that this is the only time when Full Faith and Credit counts! It is the doctrine prescribed in the Constitution for handling questions of authenticity. The issuing authority's certification of the information, in facsimile or abstract form, is by definition the authenticity of any document. None of the Birther law suits seems yet to appreciate this point. Hence your question is practically the only one in this thread that's right on the money: The Birthers state that they're saving the Constitution from a crisis, when in fact they're the ones trying to manufacture a crisis by ignoring the constitution.

So at one end of the playing field there is Full Faith and Credit, the legal concept that has governed interstate relations and commerce for well over 200 years, and has a wealth of case law surrounding it. And at the other end you have the Birthers with a factually bankrupt case for forgery and a desperate desire to overturn Full Faith and Credit with it. They are required to chart a legal course across that playing field, citing any federal precedents that should shape a court's eventual ruling.. So far their case has been simply to demand that the other team respect their homemade goalposts instead of the real ones. Not one single Birther lawsuit advances a legal theory showing how Full Faith and Credit should not apply here and subvert their evidentiary case -- non-existent as it already is. I'm baffled at the plaintiffs' reaction to these rulings. It's literally as if they don't know what Full Faith and Credit is or what it means.

 

[Mojo]

So at one end of the playing field there is Full Faith and Credit, the legal concept that has governed interstate relations and commerce for well over 200 years, and has a wealth of case law surrounding it. And at the other end you have the Birthers with a factually bankrupt case for forgery and a desperate desire to overturn Full Faith and Credit with it. They are required to chart a legal course across that playing field, citing any federal precedents that should shape a court's eventual ruling.. So far their case has been simply to demand that the other team respect their homemade goalposts instead of the real ones. Not one single Birther lawsuit advances a legal theory showing how Full Faith and Credit should not apply here and subvert their evidentiary case -- non-existent as it already is. I'm baffled at the plaintiffs' reaction to these rulings. It's literally as if they don't know what Full Faith and Credit is or what it means.

OK, it's clear that any birther legal action outside Hawaii is doomed because of the full faith and credit clause.

If they could somehow find evidence that Hawaii's records had been tampered with, could legal action be taken within Hawaii to get the Hawaiian government to change its position?

It's a bit hard to see how they would establish that the records had been changed given that only the state officials have access to the records and there is nothing to compare them with to demonstrate that they have been changed (not to mention that it is highly implausible given the contemporary newspaper notice etc.). In the absence of any evidence of tampering, is there any way that they could force the state to allow them to go on what would amount to a 'fishing expedition' through the state archives to look for any discrepancies?

 

[Travis]

I'd just like an answer to my long standing question: what was wrong, legally, with the original COLB Obama provided?