Tweet
HAWAII NOW REFUSES TO AUTHENTICATE OBAMA’S DIGITAL IMAGE WITH ORIGINAL BIRTH DOCUMENT
The Daily Pen
Dan Crosby
7/23/2012
Excerpt:
LYIN’ HAWAIIAN: Following shocking contradictions discovered by criminal investigators between the contents of the forged digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” posted on the internet and long-standing federal vital records regulations, the State of Hawaii now refuses to verify that the digital image matches the paper record in their files.
NEW YORK, NY – The American people were ridiculed and insulted by the liberal media for years for questioning the authority of the State of Hawaii when the current and former directors of the Hawaiian Department of Health, Loretta Fuddy and Chiyome Fukino, publicly stated that they had verified that Obama’s birth records existed on file under their jurisdiction.
Based on that uncorroborated information, Fukino even fancied herself as an INS agent stating in July of 2009 that she believed Obama was a natural born citizen. However, according to the digital image we were told was Obama’s official, original, authentic birth certificate, he is not a natural born citizen which is defined by birth to two citizen parents. Obama’s alleged father was a British citizen born in Kenya.
Then, at the very moment Obama, or most likely someone on his staff, posted a digital image of an unauthorized .pdf version of an alleged State of Hawaii issued birth certificate to an official government media source in April, 2011, a crime was committed.
Aside from the technical evidence now eviscerating the credibility of the digital image of Obama’s forged birth certificate posted to an official government media source, one of the most shocking revelations to emerge from Maricopa County’s Hawaiian records investigation is that the Deputy Attorney General of that state would not provide confirmation that the record held on file by the Hawaiian Health Department actually matched the image placed on the internet by Obama.
During the course of the investigation, Maricopa County Sheriff CCP lead investigator, Mike Zullo, asked Hawaii’s Deputy Attorney General, Jill Nagamine, to validate the information about Obama’s birth on the internet image by corroborating it with the contents of the original paper version of the birth record filed with the State of Hawaii.
Nagamine refused to do so.
“At one point during the conversation, I held up a copy of that document, (a paper copy of the internet image of Obama alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth”), and I asked her, point blank, ‘is this a copy of the document you provided Mr. Obama’s attorneys?’” he stated in a July 17th MCSO press conference.
Cowering behind legal nonsense, Nagamine refused to validate Obama’s birth certificate.
“During the course of our conversation, going back and forth, it became very apparent to us that the Deputy Attorney General was doing nothing more than hiding behind state statutes with every question we asked,” said Zullo.
Zullo continued, “I explained to her that we have a problem. The problem is that we already know by the admission of the Department of Health that they released two photo copies of the purported original long form birth certificate, placed in an envelope and given to Mr. Obama’s attorney’s. I don’t know what was contained in the documents…I don’t know what was contained in that envelope.”
Zullo’s line of questioning with Nagamine was exploring the possibility that the content of the original paper documents, which were given to Obama’s attorney’s directly by the State of Hawaii, did not match the content of the document image posted to the internet in April of 2011.
Investigators suspect an intentionally corrupted chain of custody occurred sometime between the release of the original paper documents by the State of Hawaii to the time they were posted to the Whitehouse.gov website two days later. There is now strong evidence showing that the information contained in the original documents issued by the State of Hawaii was most likely transcribed and altered by forgers working on behalf of Obama in the course of fabricating the “new and improved version” .pdf file prior to posting it online. This evidence includes inconsistencies between content and vital statistics coding, the absence of viewable information in the lower margin, the use of layers to obscure and add information and, most significantly, the lack of cooperation by the State of Hawaii to validate what has been claimed is the identical information in both the image and original documents.
Zullo illustrated this problem to Nagamine using the example of an altered image of his original driver’s license saying that if you changed the information from the original to the image, would that still serve as proof of an original driver’s license.
Washing her hands of any responsibility as a law enforcement agent to uphold regulations against the forgery of official government documents and identity fraud, Nagamine’s reply was shocking, “But, you still have an (original) driver’s license.”
Commenting on Nagamine’s response, Zullo said, “Essentially, what she was telling us is that the internet image is not what they released to Obama’s attorneys.”
Yet, it is the official position of the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, the highest ranking law enforcement official in the state, that there is no reason to investigate whether the content of the digital image of Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” is a misrepresentation of an official government document. Nagamine’s reply was a resounding confirmation that the law no longer matters in the State of Hawaii and that it probably never did when it comes to the validation of birth documents issued there.
View the complete article at:
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012...te-obamas.html
The Daily Pen
Dan Crosby
7/23/2012
Excerpt:
LYIN’ HAWAIIAN: Following shocking contradictions discovered by criminal investigators between the contents of the forged digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” posted on the internet and long-standing federal vital records regulations, the State of Hawaii now refuses to verify that the digital image matches the paper record in their files.
NEW YORK, NY – The American people were ridiculed and insulted by the liberal media for years for questioning the authority of the State of Hawaii when the current and former directors of the Hawaiian Department of Health, Loretta Fuddy and Chiyome Fukino, publicly stated that they had verified that Obama’s birth records existed on file under their jurisdiction.
Based on that uncorroborated information, Fukino even fancied herself as an INS agent stating in July of 2009 that she believed Obama was a natural born citizen. However, according to the digital image we were told was Obama’s official, original, authentic birth certificate, he is not a natural born citizen which is defined by birth to two citizen parents. Obama’s alleged father was a British citizen born in Kenya.
Then, at the very moment Obama, or most likely someone on his staff, posted a digital image of an unauthorized .pdf version of an alleged State of Hawaii issued birth certificate to an official government media source in April, 2011, a crime was committed.
Aside from the technical evidence now eviscerating the credibility of the digital image of Obama’s forged birth certificate posted to an official government media source, one of the most shocking revelations to emerge from Maricopa County’s Hawaiian records investigation is that the Deputy Attorney General of that state would not provide confirmation that the record held on file by the Hawaiian Health Department actually matched the image placed on the internet by Obama.
During the course of the investigation, Maricopa County Sheriff CCP lead investigator, Mike Zullo, asked Hawaii’s Deputy Attorney General, Jill Nagamine, to validate the information about Obama’s birth on the internet image by corroborating it with the contents of the original paper version of the birth record filed with the State of Hawaii.
Nagamine refused to do so.
“At one point during the conversation, I held up a copy of that document, (a paper copy of the internet image of Obama alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth”), and I asked her, point blank, ‘is this a copy of the document you provided Mr. Obama’s attorneys?’” he stated in a July 17th MCSO press conference.
Cowering behind legal nonsense, Nagamine refused to validate Obama’s birth certificate.
“During the course of our conversation, going back and forth, it became very apparent to us that the Deputy Attorney General was doing nothing more than hiding behind state statutes with every question we asked,” said Zullo.
Zullo continued, “I explained to her that we have a problem. The problem is that we already know by the admission of the Department of Health that they released two photo copies of the purported original long form birth certificate, placed in an envelope and given to Mr. Obama’s attorney’s. I don’t know what was contained in the documents…I don’t know what was contained in that envelope.”
Zullo’s line of questioning with Nagamine was exploring the possibility that the content of the original paper documents, which were given to Obama’s attorney’s directly by the State of Hawaii, did not match the content of the document image posted to the internet in April of 2011.
Investigators suspect an intentionally corrupted chain of custody occurred sometime between the release of the original paper documents by the State of Hawaii to the time they were posted to the Whitehouse.gov website two days later. There is now strong evidence showing that the information contained in the original documents issued by the State of Hawaii was most likely transcribed and altered by forgers working on behalf of Obama in the course of fabricating the “new and improved version” .pdf file prior to posting it online. This evidence includes inconsistencies between content and vital statistics coding, the absence of viewable information in the lower margin, the use of layers to obscure and add information and, most significantly, the lack of cooperation by the State of Hawaii to validate what has been claimed is the identical information in both the image and original documents.
Zullo illustrated this problem to Nagamine using the example of an altered image of his original driver’s license saying that if you changed the information from the original to the image, would that still serve as proof of an original driver’s license.
Washing her hands of any responsibility as a law enforcement agent to uphold regulations against the forgery of official government documents and identity fraud, Nagamine’s reply was shocking, “But, you still have an (original) driver’s license.”
Commenting on Nagamine’s response, Zullo said, “Essentially, what she was telling us is that the internet image is not what they released to Obama’s attorneys.”
Yet, it is the official position of the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, the highest ranking law enforcement official in the state, that there is no reason to investigate whether the content of the digital image of Obama’s alleged “Certificate of Live Birth” is a misrepresentation of an official government document. Nagamine’s reply was a resounding confirmation that the law no longer matters in the State of Hawaii and that it probably never did when it comes to the validation of birth documents issued there.
View the complete article at:
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012...te-obamas.html