by Sharon Rondeau
(Apr. 27, 2024) – In a remark responsive to Tuesday’s article titled, “Birth Certificate Exposé Brings Out Forgery Defenders,” commenter “Johnathan J” appears to have admitted that the “long-form” birth certificate image published on the White House website 13 years ago today bearing the name “Barack Hussein Obama” is likely not authentic.
As readers of this publication are aware, in August 2011, four months after the image’s public appearance and immediate acceptance by the mainstream media, then-Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joseph Arpaio launched an investigation into the image’s origins.
Barely six months later, “Cold Case Posse” lead investigator, former detective Mike Zullo, declared the image a “computer-generated forgery.” Also found fraudulent was Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form, which Zullo declared a “hard-copy forgery.”
Those birth-certificate finding was supported by the conclusions reached by two forensic analysts, both well-respected experts in their respective disciplines, Zullo revealed at a third and final presser on December 15, 2016.
In two recent interviews for as many articles, Zullo observed that the birth-certificate image from the Obama White House, now displayed on the website of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), bears no evidence of an official seal from the State of Hawaii, where the image and Obama’s life narrative say he was born.
An “enhanced” version of the image produced by a subject-matter expert revealed no trace of a state seal, Zullo said.
In our April 18 article, Zullo told us:
The way the State of Hawaii does it, when they print it off, it gets the safety paper background. When it’s in the book, there are all white backgrounds. The seal would already have had to be in place, and it’s not, so the Archives is displaying a fictitious document.
Several commenters took issue with that finding, insisting there is a seal on the NARA image and supplying photos said to be of the “document” NBC News journalist Savannah Guthrie photographed and uploaded to social media on April 27, 2011.
Guthrie claimed to have “seen and felt the raised seal” on the document, though White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer admitted to gaggle attendees he was distributing only “copies” of the alleged certified copies of the Obama birth record from Hawaii.
A NARA search leading to the Obama birth-certificate image for our previous two articles now omits it completely, The Post & Email discovered Saturday. Moreover, only toward the bottom of the search results is a link to the press conference Obama gave just after the image was made public, initially appearing devoid of content. At the time of this writing, clicking “Download mp4” opens the video from the presser of April 27, 2011.
As of Saturday evening, when entering the term “long-form birth certificate” at NARA, the only relevant result is the same Obama presser, with no trace of the image posted there last week which Zullo termed “fictitious.”
Curiously, Guthrie was apparently the only reporter permitted to photograph the document, as Pfeiffer had told those present the presser was “off camera,” “pen and pad,” and “not for audio.”
At some point, however, Guthrie removed the images from her UberSocial account.
“Zullo’s speculations about other people’s emotions, motives, and financial compensation are misguided at best,” “Johnathan J” wrote on Tuesday. “But Zullo seems to have missed the point that the digital image with NARA, contrary to the assertion, shows a shape consistent with a seal. More basically, no one intended for the image to be sufficiently authentic for legal purposes, as its release was aimed at convincing reasonable minds that Hawaii has a birth certificate on file.” [Emphasis The Post & Email‘s]
How Zullo could “have missed the point that the digital image…shows a shape consistent with a seal” is an open question given that it was the subject of the April 18 article and specifically refuted by the analyst who produced the “enhanced” image.
Federal law precludes “Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information” in the form of 18 U.S. Code § 1028.
The statute begins by declaring illegal the “production” of a “false identification document,” defining it thusly:
(4) the term “false identification document” means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that—
(A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit; and
(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an event designated by the President as a special event of national significance, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization;
In numerous interviews dating back to the days of the investigation, Zullo has stated that the long-form birth-certificate image was created “with the intent to deceive.”
According to an archived page from the U.S. Justice Department:
In addition to prescribing the elements of the prohibited acts and federal jurisdictional circumstances, 18 U.S.C. § 1028 provides a three-tier level of penalties depending upon the nature of the prohibited act and the type of document involved.
- Section 1028(b)(1) is aimed at the most dangerous producers of and traffickers in false identification. It governs offenses involving: (1) the production or transfer of an identification document or false identification document that is or appears to be a United States identification document or a birth certificate, driver’s license, or personal identification card; (2) the production or transfer of more than five identification documents or false identification documents; or (3) the production, transferring or possession of a document-making implement under section 1028(a)(5).
- Section 1028(b)(2) creates an intermediate penalty for the other producers and traffickers if the offense involves: (1) any production or transfer of an identification document or false identification document other than that penalized by 18 U.S.C. § 1028(b)(1); or (2) the possession with the intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents (other than those issued lawfully for the use of the possessor) or false identification documents under 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3).
- Section 1028(b)(3) covers offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(4) and (a)(6).
While it may be argued that the penalty provision for an attempt is unclear under 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (e.g., does the word “production” encompass also an attempt to produce or is an attempt to be treated as “any other case” under 18 U.S.C. § 1028(b)(3)), the legislative history conclusively indicates that Congress intended attempts to be punished at the same level as the completed offense. Federal prosecutors should therefore urge the higher penalty for attempt. Of course, attempts to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(4) and (a)(6) would be misdemeanors because such offenses are themselves misdemeanors.
Mr. DeMaio – “Stated otherwise, perhaps Johnathan J. can explain why, in two other certified genuine Hawai’ian long form birth certificates for other persons which Zullo examined from birth dates shortly before and shortly after the claimed birth date for Obama, the racial identities of both fathers were entered in Box 9 as “Negro,” yet Box 9 on Obama’s certificate identifies his father’s “race” as “African?””
Perhaps I can answer that for Mr. DeMaio. The Hawaii DOH told FactCheck.org that the race of parents is a space entered by the parents and they use whatever the parents enter.
“Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn’t tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama’s father’s race listed as “African”? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that “we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.” We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as “African.” It’s certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
So what race would Obama’s father consider himself to be? In 1962, Kenya held a census. Their census instructions specifically uses the term “African” to describe race.
https://international.ipums.org/international/resources/census_forms/africa/ke1962ef_kenya_enumeration_form.en.pdf
To the US government “Negro” was a term used for parents born in the United States. If born outside the US they were considered as non-white (see page 11 Determination of Race of Parent – paragraph 3 of this 1961 coding manual)
https://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/coding-and-punching-geographic-and-personal-particulars-for-births-occurring-in-1961.pdf
Also note they refer to the term Afro-American.
Finally please note that for at least one of the birth certificates reviewed by Mr. Zullo, the race of the father was originally listed as Colored. This was struck out and Negro replaced it. The father was born in Virginia.
One wonders why some individuals are conflating an online image, provided solely and only for the purposes of providing information and an actual, physical document that may be used for all the purposes of a certified copy of a BC?
Said individuals are then wildly throwing legally dubious statements about “Best Evidence” and “Hearsay” that are both inaccurate and irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Then we have the rather curious statements around Vattel and Blackstone which again have neither relevance or link to the matter.
Finally we have the curious notion that individuals ever receive their actual BC as opposed to a certified abstract of the contents of the BC.
Statement of fact … No court, in, if I recall correctly, over 150 varying Obama BC related legal cases, has ever requested or required a copy of the physical BC.
Statement of fact …. As no court case required said info, the spurious comments about “Best Evidence” and “Hearsay” are precisely that spurious and irrelevant as, well they were never required in court.
Statement of fact …. Ditto above Vattel and Blackstone
Statement of fact …. No one EVER receives their BC. They will only receive a certified document with a limited abstract of the full BC. The actual BC never leaves the control of the government agency responsible for it. However, the law states, at state and federal level, that said certified document is inherently a legal document and serves all the purposes of the original.
Statement of fact …. On at least one occassion (I believe the Ankeny case, happy to be corrected) when “proof” was required as to the validity of the information held in the imaged document, the then Director of Health, Dr Onaka provided a legally binding document to the court stating that all the information provided matched identically the details on record.
One trusts the information provided will be of assistance.
Reports from that time frame, however, refute that Hawaiian-born citizens could not obtain their “long-form” birth certificate: https://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/14/long-form-birth-certificates-were-available-until-trump-trumped-obama/
In that article, someone born in Hawaii claimed in 2011 they couldn’t receive a “long-term” birth certificate.
Yes, but others did.
You can assess the veracity of this “birth certificate” with one word that is out of place and time……nowhere in the US, or any Western countries use the term “African-American” on birth documents in the 1950’s.
The terms for ethnicity was strictly…
“caucasian-asian-negro”….
No other terms were used.
“African-American” does not appear on the birth certificate.
The BC is a proven forgery. Notwithstanding the fact that Obama failed to meet the legally established definition of NBC found in Minor v. Happersett, namely “One born IN the US to parents who are US Citizens themselves”. In any event, the proffering of a forged BC is ENOUGH TO invalidate Obama’s presidency under US Law. Obama committed a usurpation of the Presidency by fraud during a time of war. That makes Obama both a traitor and a spy. The fact that Obama has never been an NBC made his “Presidency” NON-existent.
My last comment went into the spam folder.
The birth certificate PDF can be found on the Archives website by adding quotations marks to the search term “long form”. It will be the sixth results.
Interesting…do you have a direct line to NARA?
It falls on Pelosi, who approved the Non-Citizen Barrack Hussein Obama to be installed into the presidency
I agree, and Pelosi also asked the Congressional Research Service to provide Congress with “research” which would “prove” Obama is eligible. The intent was/is to get all of Congress to tell their constituents the same lies about the fraud, Obama. Congress recognized they had committed treason when they did nothing to stop Obama from being sworn-in and they must forever protect Obama to protect themselves. This is what they have been and still are doing……..Donald Trump as President represents a possibility that their treason will be revealed and acted on so both parties want anybody but Trump, no matter what they must do and or say to insure that happens……..This is all so obvious, yet the destruction of America continues with Obama effectively in his third term……..
If you can grab and translate the below, that is Obama’s Mombasa birth certificate. Trust me, you’ll know it’s real.
The referenced comment came out as a lot of numbers, letters and slashes and jammed the system. Do you have a link to the image? If it is that which Malik Obama has posted before, to my knowledge it was never validated.
Acknowledging that a digital image wasn’t intended for any legal proceeding isn’t an admission that it is a forgery. The digital image had the non-legal, real-world purpose of showing to reasonable minds that it existed.
Zullo’s claims about any analyst’s asserted findings would violate the Best Evidence Rule. Zullo also inconsistently claimed the seal both didn’t exist and was forged, but even a forged seal by definition exists.
Wow…
You don’t understand the “Best Evidence Rule” do you? The rule requires the one producing the evidence to provide the best possible version…such as an actual BC rather than a copy. The burden here is on Obama to provide the best evidence possible, which is apparently what he did, but the best possible is a poorly crafted fraud.
I understand the Best Evidence Rule fine: It is a rule for admitting evidence into court, and not required for making everyday decisions. But Zullo’s claims about an analyst’s claims are not the best possible version of the analyst’s claims.
Why do you say that?
Because it is accurate: the best possible version of the analyst’s claims would be the analyst’s actual report.
Response from Joseph DeMaio:
—————————————–
Commenter Johnathan J. asserts: “Zullo’s claims about any analyst’s asserted findings would violate the Best Evidence Rule.”
Apart from the fact that the commenter confuses the “Best Evidence Rule” with the “Hearsay Rule,”– and not to mention the exceptions to the rules for the opinions of experts – it is both interesting and ironic that he would reference it at all.
Specifically, one of the de Vattel Deniers’ favorite sources in claimed support of their position is English jurist Sir William Blackstone and his treatise “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” (“Commentaries”)
Blackstone noted with regard to the Best Evidence Rule (Commentaries, “Private Wrongs,” Book 3, Ch. 23 at 368) as follows: “[T]he one general rule that runs through all the doctrine of trials is this, that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit of shall always be required, if possible to be had; but, if not possible, then the best evidence that can be had shall be allowed. For if it be found that there is any better evidence existing than is produced, the very [act of] not producing it is a presumption that it would have detected some falsehood that at present is concealed.” (Emphasis added)
A concealed falsehood? Really? Monsieur Obama must have been channeling Blackstone when he commented: “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” (Obama: The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide (youtube.com)
The fact that no “trial” is allowed on the birth certificate issue – because, purportedly, no one has litigant “standing” – does nothing to alter the fact that the “Best Evidence Rule” would clearly be violated at such a trial were it to take place. This is because Monsieur Obama and NARA still refuse to produce the hard certified copy of his claimed original Hawai’ian long-form birth certificate.
That circumstance, of course, merely underscores Blackstone’s observation that the failure to produce the purported genuine certificate – quite apart from the pendency of a “trial” – raises the independent legal presumption that “it would have detected some falsehood that at present is concealed.”
Here, the “best evidence” – the certified certificate — is acknowledged to exist, but is refused to be produced. Be satisfied with pictures of the document posted to the Internet, you commoners…, trust NBC reporter Savannah Guthrie…, now, move along….
Perhaps Johnathan J. can explain away the veracity of the Blackstone evidentiary presumption apart from the lack of a pending “trial.”
There was no confusion about the Best Evidence Rule and the hearsay rule. Nor is there an exception for asserted expert’s opinions. Nor does American law presume any falsehoods. But courtroom evidentiary rules aren’t required to make everyday decisions.
If there was a litigant that somehow cause state a cause of action, at such a trial a paper version (with a seal and signature) could be introduced into evidence.
Regardless, the best possible version of the birth certificate was shown at the press conference. And at that press conference, it was acknowledged a small percentage of people would not ever be satisfied.
The alleged “certified” paper document was not shown to anyone, and we all know that. If it existed, Obama would have held it in his hand during his public remarks.
This and the related articles discuss a reporter touching the paper document and taking a photo of it.
From Joseph DeMaio:
————————————
Johnathan J. replies to “Pa 1”: “African-American” does not appear on the birth certificate.”
The commenter’s reply is correct, but the comment of “Pa 1” asserts nothing different. However, the word “African” does appear on Barack Hussein Obama, II’s purported “genuine” long-form certificate in Box 9, where the race of the father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., is entered as “African.”
Pa 1 is correct. The term “African-American” did not come into general use until well after 1961, following the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the political sidelining and general disapproval of the previously commonly-used term: “Negro.”
Specifically, since the same person at the time was Hawai’ian Department of Health birth registrar Verna K. Lee, why would she have entered a different, more “politically correct” racial term from the future in Obama’s certificate Box 9 – “African” – while using the term “Negro” in Box 9 on certificates for persons born shortly before and shortly after Obama?
One cannot ignore the possibility that the certificate claimed by Obama to be his original long form document from 1961 was instead constructed well after the term “Negro” fell into general disfavor and the less controversial term — “African” – was substituted, with whomever was wordsmithing the document failing to realize that the more “controversial” racial identifier was still being used by Verna K. Lee both before and after August 1961.
And by the way, the term “African” denotes a general geographic nationality, not a “race,” while the term “Negro” indisputably denotes race. In any event, Verna K. Lee could not in 1961 have used the then-unknown term “African-American” anyway since Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya, not the United States of America.
Against this backdrop, what would be the explanation for Verna K. Lee altering the term generally used in Box 9 for others who were actually born in Hawai’i in the years before and after 1961? Might the reason be that the Obama certificate was concocted well after 1961 and structured with politically-correct, current-day acceptable terms rather than disfavored terms from the past?
Stated otherwise, perhaps Johnathan J. can explain why, in two other certified genuine Hawai’ian long form birth certificates for other persons which Zullo examined from birth dates shortly before and shortly after the claimed birth date for Obama, the racial identities of both fathers were entered in Box 9 as “Negro,” yet Box 9 on Obama’s certificate identifies his father’s “race” as “African?”
Parents’ races are self-reported.
That different people reported differently isn’t unusual in the slightest.
The best possible version of the birth certificate, the original birth certificate, was NOT shown at the press conference. Nor has it been shown anywhere else. That is one reason why reasonable people should never be satisfied.