Mendacious & Fabricated Letters of Verification

July 25, 2013

~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.
http://obamabc.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/chase-sr-1-40.jpg

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 (which is the case as seen by discarded examples of stamped and embossed 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).
Letter from Obama attorney Corley to Dir. of Health Fuddy (full propaganda version)
http://obamabc.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/corley_2_fuddy-1_page-40.jpg
Letter from Obama attorney Corley to Dir. of Health Fuddy (properly abridged version, plus Obama’s letter) http://obamabc.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/wh_hawaii-letters.jpg
Letter from Fuddy to Obama (in full propaganda mode): http://obamabc.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/fuddy_2_obama_debunked-w.jpg
Adrien Nash July 2013 obama–nation.com