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