Mendacious & Fabricated Letters of Verification

~Analysis of the letter sent from the Hawaii Dept of Health to Kenneth Bennet, Sec. of State of Arizona.
and those supposedly exchanged regarding production of the long form birth certificate.

Hawaii response to Arizona Sec. of State Bennet

A few things are seriously wrong with that letter.  They begin with the very first statement:  “I certify the following:”  The problem is that there is no “I” doing any certifying.  It’s an unsigned letter, and no certification letter is certified except by a human being, by the written unique signature of a human official’s hand.

No rubber stamp can replicate what was once universally seen before the era of the bastardization of certification; -namely the words “Witness my hand,” indicating an official’s actual signature.   No signature?  Then no certification of anything because it is only imputed to documents showing the personal verification of an official authority.

No court allows any legal document or communication to be legitimate without the signature of the attorney that produced it.  Neither dictators nor kings nor Presidents have ever sent out directives of major import, supposedly directly from themselves, that were certified by a rubber stamp showing a facsimile of their signature.
Such directives would need their signature and seal.  Anything less would be equivalent to currency produced via rubber stamps.  Would you accept such currency?  Would you cash a $100 bill in a nation that took to issuing its large bills as bills imprinted with rubber stamps?  Or would you only cash bills in a currency you could trust because of all of the many measures employed to prevent counterfeiting?

If you had worked hard all of your life and saved and earned a great deal of money, and one day a distant cousin or in-law comes to you and asks to borrow a million dollars with no collateral, what would you require at a minimum before complying with such a request?
You would require a a very strong contract.  He would have one written and then bring it to you.  You look at it and see that it isn’t signed, so you balk at accepting it.  He then takes out a pen and makes an “X” at the bottom.  You complain that an “X” is worthless since there are no witnesses to it, and they wouldn’t be good enough for your loan security anyway.  You insist it be signed.
He then takes a rubber signature stamp and ink pad out of his pocket and stamps the contract with a facsimile of a signature which may or may not represent his actual signature.  Would you then accept that contract and hand over a million dollar check?  If you would, then would you next go check yourself into a mental hospital?

So it is with government documents.  If there is no signature then there is no certification because there is no “I” behind the “I certify” even though the state law allows signatures of officers to be made by photographic or mechanical means.
Nothing can be authenticated as coming from the certifier if he never signed anything.  He cannot testify in court that “yes, that is my signature.  I signed it.”
His rubber stamp can be used even if he is in a dungeon or a grave.  So what is it worth then?  The same as what it’s worth while he is alive but not provably connected to a document’s validity via his personal signature.

Something comparable would be his inked thumb-print, but not a photocopy image of his thumb-print because copies can be faked but real finger-prints can’t.  They, like signatures, are unique, as well as also impossible to fake

Secondly, and right at the top of the list of “officially verified facts”, things immediately go very wrong;  quote: “A birth certificate is on file…indicating that BHO was born in Honolulu Hawaii.”  What???  “A” birth certificate?  “indicating”?
Any thinking person is going to want to know why the original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate for Obama II has never once been referred to by any official of Hawaii nor claimed to exist nor to be “on file”.

There’s three huge problems with that language.  First is that “a” birth certificate is not necessarily an original Hawaiian birth certificate.  Second is the fact that whatever is “on file” or “on record” is called an “original” birth certificate, even if issued post-adoption or under the witness protection program in which cases the true originals are sealed under secrecy forever.  It’s standard procedure to call what’s in their “files” original even when it isn’t.
Third, “on file” and “on record” simply mean: in the computer system.  State governments no longer deal with nor handle paper documents once they are entered into their data-base.  Everything is digitized.  That means that all of their older microfilm images have been digitized, along with newer documents created in the digital age and scanned into the system.

All of the old microfilm images were recreated via a software image-processing method  which extracted all of the info seen in the microfilm except that of the paper on which the original birth certificates were typed and signed.  That backgroundless image can be overlaid on top of an image of security paper or printed on actual security paper.

Since everything is digital, everything can be altered on a computer, and new counterfeit files can be inserted into the digital system as abstract backgroundless versions of an original even if an original does not exist either as a paper document nor as a microfilm capture of one.
Every reference made by the office of Hawaii’s Dept of Health refers to what is in their digital database system, -not to what is in their paper document archives.  But people ignorantly are fooled because they deliberately intend for that to be the result.
Spewing ambiguous statements that seem to mean one thing but in reality mean something completely different.  That’s how you pull the wool over the eyes of naive believers who want to believe the best about their adored, respected, supported leader even though what they are led to believe in is merely a fraudulent house of cards.

The letter, sent to Bennet, was a standard “Verification of Birth” form, but by what is that verification authenticated?  By the hand signature of the person with the authority to make the verification.  But without his signature nothing is verified nor authenticated.
Without the “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution being in force against all other states, it is virtually  worthless.

So what is really going on?  Hawaii is forcing all of the other states to accept any document printed on its official letterhead stationary even if issued with no certification whatsoever.  With no signature of a certifying authority, (you can’t be prosecuted for something that you never signed), -with no unique embossed Department Seal that can’t be counterfeited.  Only the pathetic bastardized constitutional authority to force other state authorities to accept whatever crap is “officially” spit out by anyone in the state government, including secretaries with access to the “certification” rubber signature stamps.

That is the utmost height of bureaucratic arrogance and illegitimacy.  And that is just what we are expected to accept as legitimate evidence that Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii, -one that has never claimed that he was, and which will not allow anyone to examine their “public records” of admissions in August of 1961 (unless they also now have had a illegitimate entry fabricated) to investigate whether or not a Stanley Ann Dunham Obama was ever admitted as a patient.  Do you want to know that “public” information?  Tough luck, -you’re not going to get it.

Letter from Obama attorney Corley to Dir. of Health Fuddy (full propaganda version)

Letter from Obama attorney Corley to Dir. of Health Fuddy (properly abridged version, plus Obama’s letter)

Letter from Fuddy to Obama (in full propaganda mode):

Adrien Nash July 2013  obama–


About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

2 Responses to Mendacious & Fabricated Letters of Verification

  1. Even a 100% verifiable Birth Certificate showing that the Birth of Barack Obama occurred in the Lincoln bedroom, on TV and in front of fifty people in the room at the time , it would not suffice to prove that Obama is a “Natural-Born Citizen”. One must also be born “of Parents who are both citizens”. Affirmed by SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett.

  2. arnash says:

    butterdezillion says:
    January 12, 2012

    “Credible documentation” is documentation that non-birthers believe. Non-credible documentation is documentation that birthers believe.

    That is the textbook illustration for the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. “The only real evidence is evidence that my side believes, because if my side doesn’t believe it, it must not be good evidence.” That is a circular, non-falsifiable view. IOW, there is no way you could ever be convinced that your view is wrong, based on that flaw in your logic.

    The problem with what you’re saying is that I *am* accepting what HDOH officials have said about a variety of things – and there are contradictions all over the place. Which version of the HDOH’s claims do you believe? You can’t believe them all because they contradict each other. And for rational people, contradictory claims are suspicious. That’s why we even have the whole process of cross-examination in our courts. That is an established principle for judging the credibility of a person’s claims. That standard has nothing to do with “birther” arguments; it’s a standard OUTSIDE any circular reasoning.

    There are established principles for evaluating the genuineness of documents also; those are the principles being used by Obama voters as well as non-Obama voters to show that both the supposed birth documents Obama has posted are forged. On this blog I used the scientific principle of reproducibility to show that there is no way in real life (without Cutting & Pasting after the photo was taken) to get a combination of the folds and “seal” that appear on the photo. I’ve challenged anybody and everybody to show me how that could possibly have happened. If it can’t be reproduced it is very, very suspect. That is sound scientific analysis – based on established scientific principles in existence long before the “birther” issue ever came up.

    If you can’t show how that combination happens in real life, then you have to make a SPECIAL PLEADING in order to believe the genuineness of the Factcheck photo. You have to claim that the skies opened up and God Himself caused that anomalous, miraculous image to appear – because it sure as heck didn’t happen because of the mere laws of nature, as demonstrated time and time again through methodical experiments. That particular combination cannot be verified by duplicating the result in real life.

    January 12, 2012 John says:

    You know, you seem like an intelligent woman. But you have so much emotional investment in these crazy theories that it’s impossible to crack your shell of gullibility and single-minded obsession. It’s a classic example of the mindset Hofstadter described in his classic essay, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.”
    But I guess those racial anxieties have to be dealt with somehow. And fortunately, you’ve chosen a safe and harmless way to do it. In an earlier time it would have been white hoods and midnight rides, and somebody would have gotten hurt.

    January 12, 2012 butterdezillion says:

    Wow, John. I talk about the scientific principle of being able to duplicate a result and you psychoanalyze me as being a closeted KKK-er. The ultimate ad-hominem way of refusing to address actual evidence and analysis.

    I let these comments stand here because they illustrate so clearly the difference between genuine analysis and circular reasoning that writes off all contradictory evidence as non-valid.

    If somebody shows me how the Factcheck photo’s particular combination of angles and “seal” can be duplicated in real life I will recant what I’ve said about it. That’s how scientists operate. But I haven’t found anybody who has done that. God knows I’ve tried everything I can think of and can’t duplicate that result. I’ll go wherever the evidence leads but so far nobody has been able to show me evidence that what’s on the Factcheck image is even POSSIBLE without Photoshop.

    And the same thing is true with other things. I’ve invited people to explain to me how Okubo’s statement about “date filed” and “date accepted” (given a BC# by the HDOH) being the same thing for Oahu BC’s could possibly fit the “date filed” and BC#’s on the collection of supposed BC’s we’ve got right now.

    You’ve said I should just believe the HDOH. Fine – but if I believe what Okubo said about “date filed” being “date accepted”, that means we’ve got about 3 or 4 forged BC’s out there right now, including the Waidelich one which CNN claims they filmed Waidelich picking up from the HDOH.

    So which HDOH claim do I believe – Okubo’s statement, or the COLB they gave Waidelich? Nobody has shown me a way they could both be true. And for any rational person, those contradictions fail the cross-examination test and call the credibility and/or LEGALITY of the HDOH’s claims into very serious question.

    Which is why I have called for an investigation. That’s all I have ever asked for, and it is what any reasonable person would ask for given the contradictions by the HDOH and the blatant anomalies (physical impossibilities, even, as I’ve shown) in what Obama claims are the documents he received from the HDOH.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: