Announcement

**bsteadman** · 03-31-2012, 04:07 PM

Free Republic is running a thread titled, "Alabama Supreme Court: Serious Questions About Authenticity of Obama's Birth Certificates", which was started 3/29/2012 by 'Seizethecarp'

The thread references the 3/29/2012 Birther Report covering the same topic.

View the complete Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2865775/posts

The following is COMMENT #50, by 'butterdezillion' in the thread:

"Hawaii gave parents and/or the local registrar (in cases where parents were not available) a month to get together all the information required for the birth certificate. If that information was not received within a month of that time period, the BC had to be stamped with “Delayed” and it would not be legally probative.

Lori Starfelt says she spoke with somebody at the HDOH who told her that they required a doctor’s examination to verify the information from at-home births. Whether that is true, I have no way of knowing for sure because Lori Starfelt is apparently the only person in the world who can get the HDOH to answer questions. What they are REQUIRED to do is to provide records and they claim no records that clarify what the procedures and requirements were for that time.

Aloha Ronnie has mentioned overhearing women talking about how they could register their foreign-born newborns as having been born in HI. Whether they had to be seen by a doctor he didn’t know. But there was a 2-month window in which they could have gotten a BC completed, with the doctor signing off on the details. And they must have done that, because the CDC’s statistics for attended and unattended births shows very few unattended births - but does clarify that an unattended birth would be one where the mother and baby were not examined by a doctor afterwards, regardless of the circumstances of the birth.

If Obama was born in HI there would be no reason at all for him to not have a HI birth certificate. If there was an adoption involved the only thing that would be different would be the names on the BC - his, and his parents. If his name is in the birth index as Barack Hussein Obama II then there is supposed to be a discloseable BC for him under that name, and adoption by Soetoro would have no bearing on that. However, we do know that the birth index has been manipulated to include birth names for at least some adoptive children. If there is not a Barry/Barack Soetoro in the birth index then it should be concluded that either he was never adopted by Soetoro or he was adopted and then unadopted - in which case the only discloseable BC they would have would be under the name Barack Hussein Obama II.

So if there is a Barry/Barack Soetoro in the birth index then there could be a BC for him under the adoptive name - in which case they could not disclose the BC under the Obama name unless they had a court order. I did request to see the court order allowing them to disclose an original birth certificate for Obama and they said there was no record responsive to my request.

It’s hard to know anything about the records when you know the HDOH is altering official records. But if anything about their records or what they’ve said in UIPA responses is true, then the adoption angle doesn’t fly.

In any event, what Candor7 said is very relevant. Even when BC’s are fabricated to cover for an adoption they are created as complete paper documents. If there was a supplemental BC created after an adoption that paper BC would be in the volume of BC’s and when somebody requests it there would be no way to tell it from any other BC. It wouldn’t have to be manipulated digitally like the Obama long-form was manipulated.

Nor would a COLB have to be forged."

The following is COMMENT #52, by 'butterdezillion' in the thread:

"To create a supplemental birth certificate after an adoption they would take all the information from the original BC but would change the name of the mother and the father. They would not need to C&P a doctor’s signature or anything else. The place of birth, etc are all supposed to remain the same. The only thing that changes is the name of the mother and/or the name of the father - whichever relationship is altered by the adoption.

And incidentally, this is why it is important that the original BC’s on file at the HDOH are NOT on security paper and not microfilmed on security paper either. They are on plain paper. A photocopy could easily be made, a name manufactured and C&P’ed onto the work-copy, and a clean copy made to put in the file to replace the original. I’m not sure how they would handle the microfilm roll in that instance, but when they went to make a certified copy they would simply photocopy onto security paper and put the registrar’s stamp/signature and the HDOH seal on it.

The signs of manipulation that are on Obama’s long-form would not come from that simple alteration. The only anomalies we’d expect to see if there was an adoption would be perhaps a different type font for the father’s name. And there would be no reason to forge a COLB, since that’s just a computer printout with the authenticating marks on it. The COLB Obama posted had no authenticating marks at all, and the COLB Factcheck said they photographed had a seal that was C&P’ed onto the document after it was photographed with the 3-D folds."

Announcement

Alabama Supreme Court: Serious Questions About Authenticity of Obama's BC

Alabama Supreme Court: Serious Questions About Authenticity of Obama's BC

Comment