by Sharon Rondeau
(Apr. 29, 2024) — Just after midnight Sunday, in response to an article published Saturday evening titled, “An Admission of Forgery?” commenter “Holden Faweva” claimed Obama birth-certificate lead investigator Mike Zullo failed to prove that “the Ah’Nee certificate was used to produce Barry’s LFBC” (long-form birth certificate).
The commenter’s reference was to the original, paper birth certificate of one Joanna Ah’Nee, born in Hawaii the same month as Obama reportedly was, and which Zullo revealed at a 2016 press conference was a “source document” (45:12) for the forgery of the Obama birth-certificate image presented to the public 13 years ago.
Zullo revisited that scenario in an interview published at The Post & Email Tuesday in which he asserted the image bears no discernible seal and is therefore “unauthenticated.”
Background
During the 2016 presser, narrator Mark Gillar revealed Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff’s Office “Cold Case Posse” investigators’ findings that nine elements from the Ah’Nee birth certificate were replicated in precisely the same places at identical angles on the Obama birth-certificate PDF uploaded to the White House website on April 27, 2011.
When Gillar concluded the segment (45:40), Zullo, who had provided an overview of the investigation’s conclusions to date, remarked, “I really want that to sink in. These were taken as one group. That’s why relationally they were proportionate to each other. That’s a key factor here.”
Also announced during the press conference was investigators’ retention of two forensic document analysts whose findings, reached independently and without knowledge of the other’s work, affirmed the investigation’s conclusions that the “long-form” birth certificate image is a “computer-generated forgery.”
Faweva nevertheless opined that both Zullo and the “court-recognized document experts” commissioned to scrutinize the evidence missed the mark in “proving the Ah’Nee certificate was used to produce Barry’s LFBC.”
“Not only did Zullo and his vaunted document experts, both foreign and domestic, not come close to proving the Ah’Nee certificate was used to produce Barry’s LFBC,” Faweva wrote, “what he was able to prove was that he and his experts had no semblance of professional criteria to come to proper conclusions.”
He continued:
Herewith, I include excerpts from the relevant and claimed Ah’Nee fields and their corresponding fields from Barry’s LFBC, first onto Green Safety Paper, and secondly onto the gray blank background found in the White House Press Corps(e) Press Kits.
The reader will note that police guy has fully screwed up his claimed evidence for the culminating, final presser. NONE of the sample Ah’Nee fields were used to source Barry’s analogous fields. They don’t match at all!!!!
However, in other comments Faweva appeared to doubt the birth certificate’s authenticity, as his comment submitted in response to one from “Johnathan J,” a strong proponent of the authenticity of the image, reads:
There is such evidence in the Barry BC story, as there are several cases where seals were used in a fraudulent manner, as with Barry’s LFBC three Verifications. Thus, use of your “especially unlikely” is far off the mark. If the Guthrie I-feel-something seal doesn’t manifest the required-to-be-valid features, it would only be an added measure of BC forgery, par for the course for these intel-agency-connected document manipulators.
To our knowledge a newcomer to The Post & Email’s comment section, Faweva also refuted Obama-supportive “Lindsay Boxer”:
We’ve seen this apparently mistaken attribution before in reference to top people at the HDOH. Perhaps a supposedly deceased intel community asset, as with Subud in Indonesia and internationally, but who actually escape death through the Fuddy staged water landing.
As ATO very well knows, the MS Dem Party Verification is flawed and therefore invalid. The Director’s signature is nowhere to be found on that verification, though her star-containing seal is present next to ATO’s.
Responding to this writer’s past reporting, Faweva remarked:
You cite and quote left, right, up and down as a be-all-end-all authority, it is Zullo’s incompetent work that could have totally destroyed everything that was good about the “birther movement” if his work and its conclusions were given the public, Congressional or court hearings he sought.
To the latter, The Post & Email responded:
The issue is not the “birther movement,” but rather, what the truth is.
On Saturday evening we published another article on the subject titled, “An Admission of Forgery?” to which “Johnathan J,” whose earlier comment served in part as a catalyst for the article, responded:
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.
According to the Obama White House, the PDF image of Obama’s original birth record was derived from the original held by the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) in a “bound volume.” Two certified copies, Obama Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer and White House Counsel Robert Bauer claimed at a press gaggle just before the release of the image to the world, were retrieved by Obama’s personal attorney, Judith Corley, at the HDOH in Honolulu and delivered to the White House the afternoon prior.
Corley was then employed by the law firm Perkins Coie, which Bauer founded and to which he returned upon his departure from the Obama White House approximately six weeks after the release of the birth certificate image.
During the gaggle, Pfeiffer told reporters the image bore a “seal,” implying it proved authenticity.
Bauer claimed the “original” birth certificate “is in a bound volume in the records at the state Department of Health in Hawaii.”
Zullo has refuted that claim, along with the presence of any state seal on the PDF image the National Archives displays on its website, rendering it, as he put it, “unauthenticated.”
Last week Zullo expressed to The Post & Email that he believes several frequent commenters, among them “Johnathan J,” “Ray Fremick,” “Reality Check” and “Joe Leland,” are in service to the government and/or the Obama camp to immediately attempt to dispel the investigational findings he has chosen to make public with disinformation to sow doubt in readers’ minds.
The aforementioned individuals insist that photographs NBC reporter Savannah Guthrie claimed to have taken of the “long-form” paper copy she received at the April 27, 2011 press gaggle and uploaded to her UberSocial account showed the presence of an official “seal” she had “seen and felt.”
As we have reported, Guthrie later removed the images without an explanation.
Saturday evening’s article revealed that the search term we utilized on April 18 to locate the long-form image at NARA (“long-form” without the quotation marks) no longer yields that result.
Of that development, Zullo observed:
The link to the PDF document on the NARA site was removed promptly after your report was published, as anticipated. This indicates close monitoring by NARA/Obama officials of your coverage or the possibility of a tip-off from a well connected commenter to trigger such swift internal counter-measures. These scenarios raise troubling questions about potential collusion to suppress truthful information. The decision to produce a PDF version of the document complicates matters for those defending this fraud. Any hard-copy birth certificate obtained would need to match both the PDF and the original Guthrie photos exactly.
Inconsistencies could call into question the legitimacy of the hard-copy document and expose the criminal acts behind the PDF and its creation process. Failure to align the hard copy with the PDF would cast doubt on the authenticity of both the PDF, the Guthrie photos and the paper document itself.
Creating the PDF has posed a challenging situation and a significant Catch-22 for supporters of the PDF document’s validity. Moreover, if the State of Hawaii were to provide an identical paper document it could impact the state of Hawaii on a multitude of levels.
I want to remind you about then-Governor Abercrombie’s contradictory actions regarding the birth document. Initially, he publicly declared that the birth document was not available at the HDOH. He said he could not find a birth certificate for Obama anywhere. However, several weeks later, he said he found a partially-typed and handwritten document from the Hawaii state archives (no pressure there). The Obama document was not located in the expected bound volume at the Department of Health’s records room, and no other birth certificate displayed similar concerns. These circumstances bring into question the true origins of the document and the possibility of criminal collusion.
The “Best Evidence” Question
“’Johnathan J’ is alluding to the PDF as being proof positive; that makes it ‘best evidence,’” Zullo told us. “That guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” He then added:
The best evidence rule is grounded in the assumption that the original document or recording is the most reliable representation of its contents. When multiple copies or reproductions of a document exist, the original is considered to be the primary source because it has not been subject to alterations or manipulations that may have compromised its integrity.
If the original document is unavailable, a duplicate or certified copy may be admissible. However, the bearer of the evidence must demonstrate that the original document is unavailable and that the duplicate or certified copy is an accurate representation of the original.
In the digital age, the best evidence rule also extends to electronic evidence. The original electronic file must be produced in order to ensure its authenticity and integrity. This includes email messages, text messages, and other digital documents.
The Ah’Nee birth certificate is the best evidence, as it is an original certified paper document.
The Barack Obama “long-form” PDF is best evidence for two reasons:
1.The PDF file has been offered as an exact digital reproduction of a purported official document by the highest government officials. The PDF is direct evidence offered as verification and proof of a record event and attested to as factual.
2.Regardless of its origin, the PDF itself serves as the primary evidence of the alleged digital crime, with all of its irregularities intact. The PDF is the crime.
The arguments put forward seem like an effort to distort facts with persuasive language and evade responsibility for prior statements. They are now trying to deflect blame and once again criticize our analysis, but these criticisms are unfounded for several reasons. Our assessment relies on expert evaluation rather than unverified claims from unknown online sources. “Best evidence” refers to physical documents and digital files in this context – we have in our possession Ah’Nee’s original paper document, while numerous unsuccessful attempts were made to obtain Obama’s corresponding physical record as it remained inaccessible to the public. Therefore, we conducted our analysis by examining its digital equivalent, the PDF file, presented as legal evidence nationally, which raised suspicions of potential criminal activity due to detected alterations within the PDF document. The issues surrounding the PDF and its handling present criminal implications.
“Johnathan J” revealed the entire deceptive plot. In an attempt to recover, he is now attacking the analysis and claiming it violated the principle of “best evidence.” This argument is absurd, as the PDF serves as best evidence of the crime.
Amid the “Disinformation,” a “Thank-You”
Johnathan posted the following prior to Saturday’s article:
Zullo’s speculations about other people’s emotions, motives, and financial compensation are misguided at best. 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.”
In his final statement, Zullo expressed gratitude to Johnathan J. for revealing the truth about the fraud. “His statement is an admission of fraud and illegal creation of an official document,” Zullo said. “It was never intended to appeal to ‘reasonable minds’; it was intended to deceive the masses by fraud and deceit.”
To Johnathan’s statement that “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 replied, “His statement is an admission of the crime.”
Zullo indicated a lack of interest in engaging with opponents who lack expert analysis to support their claims. He also suspects that those still defending the issue may have closer ties to the fraudulent activity, potentially explaining their need to defend it.
He suggested that there appears to be a level of collusion and connection at the National Archives and predicted the image will likely be removed altogether within the coming weeks, given recent actions to make it less accessible.