U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN HONOLULU SUBPOENAS LORETTA J. FUDDY, HAWAII HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR

from the Mail and Post

U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN HONOLULU SUBPOENAS LORETTA J. FUDDY, HAWAII HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR

by Sharon Rondeau

The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii issued and served a subpoena on July 5, 2011 to the director of the Hawaii Health Department for Obama's original birth certificate

(Jul. 5, 2011) — A process server has delivered a Hawaii court-issued subpoena to Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, commanding her “to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying testing, or sampling of the material:”

original 1961 typewritten birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, III [sic] issued 08.08.1961, signed by Dr. David Sinclair, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and registrar Lee, stored in the Health Department of the State of HI from 08081961 until now.

The subpoena allows Fuddy until August 8, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. to produce the document.

The designated place of production is noted as:

Health Department
State of HI
1250 Punchbowl str. room 325
Honolulu, HI 96813

Above the date, the following text appears:

The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule 45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are attached.

The subpoena is signed by a deputy clerk as evidenced by an underline appearing beneath that term under the signature line. It is dated “0705.2011″ just above the signature.

A second page titled “Proof of Service” reads:

This subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any) Loretta Fuddywas received by me on (date) 0705.2011

A box is checked and the following preprinted text states:

I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:

and the lines are completed with the following:

by certified mail return receipt sent to Attorney General of HI, 485 South King str, room 200, Honolulu, HI 96813 on (date) 07.05.2011; or

The checkbox and line below are blank.

Zeroes appearing on lines with dollar signs indicate that there are no fees charged for the service.

A final statement reads:

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date: 07.05.2011

The server’s signature appears in cursive writing and is printed on the line below. It is stamped with the following below the process server’s signature and printed name:

Law Offices of Orly Taitz, Esq.
29639 Santa Margarita Pkwy. Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

Proof of Service of the Subpoena from the U.S. District Court in Hawaii to the Health Department Director and the Hawaii Attorney General

Envelope in which Dr. Orly Taitz received a copy of the subpoena and its second page, which is the Proof of Service document

Loretta Fuddy and Dr. Alvin Onaka, Registrar of the Hawaii Department of Health, had previously refused Taitz’s request to release Obama’s original birth certificate, citing concerns for “privacy.” Taitz responded to Onaka’s refusal with a letter copied to several congressmen, putative Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, and the statement:

…we have an individual with a forged birth certificate and an invalid Social Security number usurping the position of the US president and Commander in Chief of the whole US military. Your and Ms. Fuddy’s refusal to provide access to the original birth certificate can be viewed as aiding and abetting to uttering of a forged document and elections fraud. Based on all of the above, I am respectfully requesting an administrative review of my appeal and granting access to the original document in question. If the appeal is not granted within 30 days, I will be taking further action.

On April 27, 2011, the White House released what it claimed was a certified copy of Obama’s long-form birth certificate on television and the internet. However, numerous document examiners, typesetting experts, and graphics consultants have come forward to state in formal presentations and reports that the image presented to the public is a poor forgery.

“THIS IS TREASON”

by Sharon Rondeau

Why was this image created and supplied as a certified copy of Obama's original birth certificate? Why is the Kenyan government investigating Obama's possible birth there?

(Jun. 2, 2011) — Mr. Douglas Vogt is the author of several books which focus on science and religion as well as owner of Vector Associates, a book publishing company. He has also worked as an accountant and owned a typesetting company for 11 years. Regarding the image purported to be Obama’s birth certificate released to the public on April 27, 2011, Vogt states:

I have a unique background for analyzing this document. I owned a typesetting company for 11 years so I know type and form design very well. I currently own Archive Index Systems since 1993, which sells all types of document scanners worldwide and also developed document imaging software (TheRepository). I know how the scanners work. I have also sold other document imaging programs, such as Laser Fiche, Liberty and Alchemy. I have sold and installed document imaging systems in city and county governments, so I know their procedures with imaging systems and everything about the design of such programs. This will be important in understanding what has happened with Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth.

On May 12, Vogt submitted an affidavit which was included in a Motion to Intervene filed by Atty. Orly Taitz with the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Louisiana in regard to the case of Hornbeck v. Salazar. The affidavit consisted of a sworn statement and detailed report stating Vogt’s conclusion that the image a purported long-form birth certificate bearing the name of Barack Hussein Obama II is a forgery.

Vogt told The Post & Email that he had written the report for his own purposes prior to its inclusion in Taitz’s Motion to Intervene.

On May 22, 2011, Vogt updated the report, which declares that forgery of a government document would be a felony under U.S. Code, Title 18, and included it in acriminal complaint filed with the FBI.

The Post & Email asked Mr. Vogt how he arrived at his conclusions, and his answers are presented here in great detail. He referred to the May 22 updated analysis by the number of each subtitled section. The graphics are referred to as “Figures.”

MR. VOGT: I have no financial interest in this whatsoever. But here is what happened: I heard the presidential announcement on the 27th, and a friend of mine contacted me and said that there were layers in the image. He sent me a link to the White House blog. I logged on on the 28th and got another version. It explains in Subsection 8 of the long (updated) report that people were reporting nine layers. I decided I was going to write a report of what I found, and it was written independently of Orly’s case.

This is a blatant, obvious forgery. The thing I had in my mind as I was discovering it was, “Why did the forger go to such trouble to do these things which were seemingly unnecessary and blatant?” the last one being the stamped signature on the lower right-hand side, supposedly done on the 25th of the month. Where the words are, “THE” is deliberately misspelled as “TXE.” If you scroll down to page 11, you can see it. That’s not an “H.” The graphic artist who did this thing literally built that “X” by clicking pixels. It wasn’t an ‘H.” Also, the “F” in “OF” has also been doctored or came from someplace else because it’s closed off on the right-hand side. It’s not like the stamp that was done about a month before on the bottom of page 10; that stamp is perfectly fine, not crooked.

Those two things gave it away as a fraud: the “X” is “THE” and what they did to the word “OF.” But also, the stamp is too straight. This is hand stamp that someone takes with his hand and slaps it down. It’s called “skewing.” It’s skewed, but this one is off only two pixels over three inches over the length of the thing, which is unusually straight, which I don’t think they could do. That’s 1/150th of an inch off, and that’s really somebody placing it on the background image of the security paper.

The other thing is that on the “A” for “Alvin,” there’s a script “e” embedded on it, and if you look at the bottom of the previous one, it’s not really there. The “A” is smudged because of the rubber stamp, and they must have hit from the right-hand side of the stamp, as it’s darker there. But the point is that somebody has put something there.

Now the question is, “Was the “e” originally there on the original paper and they didn’t erase it before they put this thing down, or is the forger basically screaming at us that this thing is a forgery?” And I’m beginning to think that the forger may actually be the hero here because some of this stuff is so blatant, figuring that when he or she sent the PDF to the White House or to Hawaii and then Hawaii sent the PDF to the White House, they would have just printed it out on a color printer and scanned that in and presented it to the public.

I know the state of Hawaii has to have it. Besides, when I saw the image that Obama produced, I knew they had scanned this thing from one of the postbinder books, which is what #1 is, where I describe it. That’s one of the first things that gave it away: the typewriter lines were straight, but there was a paralax for the form itself, and I said, “OK; it’s been overlaid. That’s impossible.”

MRS. RONDEAU: Could you explain the term “parallax?” What does that mean?

MR. VOGT: It’s a optic term. It’s a distortion of the image. That’s all it means. It’s because when you put the paper down on the flatbed scanner, which is what they did, where the binder is (known as a gutter), was higher off the glass than the rest of it. So it looks as if it’s stanched down to the left. That’s an optical distortion, because they never took the pages out of the postbinder. These are all originally single pages, and the pages were actually printed most likely on letter-press, hot-metal letter-press, which was developed in the 50s and 60s.

The county would print up the birth certificate forms and send them to the hospital, and from the birth certificate, the hospital would type up and fill in the long form that the county gives them. Then the doctor would sign it, the mother would sign it, and they would mail it to the county.

I tried to explain the whole procedure so that people understood that this is what actually happened in all counties. This is how the procedure goes. In the old days, the county would microfilm it like the examples we had there that had been recorded before – the Nordyke twins.

The stamp that the state of Hawaii has is two and one-quarter inches; that’s larger than normal. Usually they’re less than two inches. You’ll notice the stamp on the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates are very close to the edge of the paper, and there is another one that was printed and stamped on the right-hand edge near the top. You can clearly see the embossing of the county seal. That’s Figure 18 on the latest report. I know the machine they used; they used an electronic machine, and it’s pretty obvious that the one that Obama presented was a second- or third-generation image of what was originally on the background color that the artist used.

I gave examples where, even on the Nordyke twins’s birth certificates, which is really an inverse of the microfilm copy, you can clearly see the imprint of the embossment seal. You can’t see it at all on Obama’s, and his is brand new. Those electronic stampers produce a lot of force. They’ll emboss three or four pieces of paper at once which can be seen very clearly. But this thing was just an artifact on the background image, so it’s just a joke. From that, I know that the whole story is not plausible.

If you open up the file in Wordpad or Notepad, then you’ll actually see the hexadecimal code and the commands within the document. I put the one I have on that page on Vectorpub.com, and that basically showed clearly that objects 13-21 were the parameters, in pixels – it tells you horizontally and vertically – where these images are. So there’s no argument, and they can’t prove it wrong. I have it from within the document from the White House that the thing is a multi-layered document. It had XML code on the very bottom of the file. If you open it yourself, you’ll see it. It gave a creation date and a modification date.

MRS. RONDEAU: What were those dates?

MR. VOGT: Well, the one I had had a creation date of April 27, 2011 at 12:09 p.m.; modification date of April 28 at 9:58 a.m. That’s the one I had pulled out. Dr. Corsi had sent me two more, but his were dated May 9 and 12, and one them didn’t have the XML data.

MRS. RONDEAU: Where did he find those?

MR. VOGT: People sent it to him thinking that was the first one, and it wasn’t.

MRS. RONDEAU: So you did an analysis and found that they were created on yet different dates from the first two?

MR. VOGT: That’s correct. I have one from at least the second day, but it really doesn’t matter at this point; I have the evidence from the White House.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have any thoughts on the short-form certificate which former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed he “put out on the internet?”

MR. VOGT: I don’t know. I’ve seen it, but they blocked out the serial number on the upper right-hand corner because they probably didn’t have one. It’s unknown right now.

Let’s go through the eight items so that you understand what they are.

We already talked about the distorted image that’s covered in #1. If you scroll down just above Subheading #2, you’ll see that the letters “N,” “s,” “H,” and “al” are grayscale, and the rest are binary, black and white. Even below it, the “d” in “residence” is grayscale. The document is just loaded with that kind of stuff, where you have letters that are grayscale and the rest are binary, black and white. At first I asked, “Well, why did he or she do that?” and I realized that the form is such that he or she needed to establish the baseline of the original form. That’s why it was done. Some of the letters were still there from a previous form, in grayscale, because he had to establish the baseline of the type, because if he got that wrong, it would have been really obvious that it was a forgery because the baseline would have been different from what is normally on any of the forms in points or picas.

That gave it away: the type, the name of the hospital, and the graphic above, “Male,” which didn’t bend down, but everything on the paper did bend down. So the typewriter stuff was another layer imposed on top of the form.

Subheading #2 is about the haloing around all the type. I gave examples of what it’s supposed to look like, both in grayscale, binary or even in color. With a background security paper, the type is supposed to show through, and his doesn’t at all. It’s due to a couple of different things. I didn’t go into it totally because it might be too technical, but basically, if the person was scanning in on grayscale or color, and then did that to the black and white but he had thresholding, what would happen is the boxes around real 100% black would still have a value in it; 256 is totally black, and zero (0) is white. But if he mistakenly didn’t have the thresholding correct, what would happen is that the boxes around the type would still have a value in it. It might be 20, 30 or 10; it would still look like white, but it really isn’t. So when he overlaid it on the color background and he said, “Type forward,” that it should be above the layer of the security paper, it would then block out the image of the security paper behind it because there was still a value in those little pixels. That’s the reason for the haloing effect around all the type.

MRS. RONDEAU: So that haloing should not be present on any copy of an original document?

MR. VOGT: That’s correct. That’s why I gave examples on page 3 and at the top of page 4. You can clearly see on Figure 6 or 7 that there is no haloing whatsoever, and you see the security paper behind it, both the green or the grayscale one. Figure 5 is a haloing effect; it should not be there: period, end of subject. It just can’t be there.

At the top of the next page, Figure 9, is a blowup of what grayscale letters look like. What happened when they went to binary, they made a mistake on the thresholding, so those little boxes that look like a faint gray when the program would convert it to a black and white image as with Figure 8, it still had a value around those letters. The value might have been 10, 20 or 30, but it still looked like white. But when they overlaid it, it really was a color, so it blacks out the background color, the background layer. That’s technically how it would happen, but if I did go into it, it would really be over everyone’s head.

MRS. RONDEAU: Is there a way to create a forged document which no one can detect?

MR. VOGT: It depends on the type of document. With this one, the unusual part is the parallax, or the curved image from the book. If it’s a flat image, it’s a lot easier. The curved one makes it much tougher. It’s really tough. The ones who are the experts at doing things like that is the CIA, and I can tell you right now that the CIA did not do this or any other intelligence agency. They would stay so far away from something like this; they never would have touched it. In fact, it would be the biggest red light to all of them; they’d investigate who is this guy in the White House now? They wouldn’t tolerate this; they just wouldn’t tolerate it at all.

Figure 10 is an inverted image of the black and white microfilm copy of Susan Nordyke’s birth certificate, and you can clearly see what it looks like and what the inverted image looks like.

Subsection #3: Obama’s document is loaded with both binary and grayscale. The person did it because they needed to establish the baseline of the type. Sometimes he didn’t do such a hot job. I’m saying “he,” but it could be a “she.” That’s the reason why they left these letters in there; they needed points by which to register the baseline of the forgery.

If you scroll down to Figure 13, which is on page 7, it’s his name: “Barack,” and the “r” is grayscale, visibly, and the rest is binary. They did that for registration reasons; they had to register the type. They figured no one would ever see it.

MRS. RONDEAU: What does “registering the type” mean?

MR. VOGT: The baseline. The baseline is where the type sits, the bottom of the type; that’s called a baseline, or baseline rule, in the typesetting business. That’s why my unique experience in typesetting told me immediately that this was a fraud. I recognize things that other people would not have.

Figure 14 is a separate offense. Do you see the “1″ where the number is in #14? That’s grayscale. Its baseline is different from the rest of it.

MRS. RONDEAU: So it will always look different if it’s grayscale?

MR. VOGT: Yes, that’s it, because it’s not a white dot or a black dot, which is binary; it’s rather 256 levels of gray to black. That’s the whole point. So it’s easy to spot like that. That told me immediately that we really don’t know what number he is or if he even has a number. He probably doesn’t at all. The interesting thing is this: the way the federal law is written, this is a separate offense that gives you five years in prison: that alone.

MRS. RONDEAU: Why would someone create something that is such an obvious forgery? I haven’t heard of one analyst who has vouched for the document except for one on fox News, but even he didn’t declare it authentic.

MR. VOGT: Yes, you’ll read it on the bottom; I answered him. He knows nothing. I’m going to send my material off to Fox News, but in my humble opinion, the guy is an idiot for even saying it.

Anyway, let’s go on. The sequential number is a fraud; that’s #4, and it goes through the law section a little bit and also the fact that even though his was submitted three days earlier than the Nordyke twins’s, who have a lower number, he has a higher number, and it’s just impossible. In counties, when any document comes in, regardless of department, they open up the mail and they stamp it because that’s the legal requirement. They wouldn’t have forgotten that; it’s a legal requirement, and they’re forced to do it. So it is impossible for him to have a number higher than someone’s who was mailed or OK’d three days earlier, just impossible. It’s an immediate red flag.

MRS. RONDEAU: From the paragraph which begins “The facts I have shown you in #3 and 4,” it looks as if you have heard the story of Virginia Sunahara. Some researchers believe that Obama could have been given her number because she was born on August 4 and died the next day. It’s possible that they assigned the death certificate before the birth certificate, which might account for the higher number.

MR. VOGT: If you read that paragraph, you’ll see that there are two possibilities. She was born in one hospital. They’re the ones who are legally supposed to submit the birth certificate. They would have mailed it, and they would have assigned a number to her. Then she was transferred to the other hospital, Kapiolani, where she died the next day. They would have been legally responsible to file the death certificate, which would have been mailed that next week. So the point is that she would have had a birth certificate and a death certificate. The law that the federal government passed in December 2004 said that you had to link the two together; they both had to be in the database. So they had access to who had died, so it was very convenient. But it also means, as I have in the third or fourth sentence, that we really don’t know if Obama’s birthday was really the fourth. We can’t assume anything at all. Maybe a long lie has been out there for all these years, but it doesn’t mean it’s true. You have to prove it. That’s the whole point. And I don’t think he has; it’s just a joke, the whole thing.

But the security hole is that the Kenyans say that his birth certificate was stolen or destroyed, which means that it probably wasn’t destroyed, but whomever is blackmailing him has the original. They have the original. So that’s the problem.

Number 5 is two different colors. This was really weird. Actually, it was in three places. I mention all three. There are two things here with the rubber stamp; it’s not just one curiosity. It’s on page 8 and 9, having to do with boxes 22 and 20. When the document comes into the registrar’s office, it’s the same rubber stamp; they stamp it on the left-hand side; they stamp it on the right-hand side, and the guy signs it off. The guy’s name in this case is U.K.L. Lee.

MRS. RONDEAU: A lot of people have questioned if that was a real person.

MR. VOGT: The other part that I was suspicious about, even though I’ve seen his name on a 1962 Certificate of Live Birth, he was supposed to legally have signed his whole name; no initials. That’s the law: it’s supposed to be his whole name. But he didn’t do that.

MRS. RONDEAU: Do you think that was a law in 1961?

MR. VOGT: You could see that for the Nordyke twins, the registrar signed his whole name without middle initials. His whole name was there. So the person who signed that one knew that he had to sign his whole name with no initials. So that’s suspicious.

Now, look at #22 and then #20. This should never have been, because there’s a color value to date “A” – August (Aug) and then the sixth, and that can’t be. This thing is supposed to have been scanned in grayscale or binary. We can’t have a color here, but we do. It is a dark green. I gave the color value on the bottom of page 8. Then we have box #20 at Figure 16, and we have a rubber stamp. This can’t be. They used the same rubber stamp the same day: the guy has a rubber stamp in his hand with the date, and he stamps left and right, and then he signs it. This can’t be. So it’s not only just the color, but it’s also the fact that it was two different rubber stamps with two different sizes. That’s can’t be.

Also, he grabbed the word “Date” in “A” because the “August” touched those letters, so he was stuck having to grab the top part as well as the date part. When you read the whole report, it is so obvious that this thing is a Frankenstein form.

That’s not the only place. In the third place it shows up, it’s mentioned just above Figure 16, that in box 17a, it displays the word “None,” but “Non” is in dark green, but not the “e.” It’s crazy stuff! That’s why I’m saying that the forger either was paid a lot of money but didn’t like what he was doing or hated what he was doing and was being forced to do it by his boss, and he was going to put enough things in there that a professional who knew this stuff could wind up spotting and say, “This thing is a forgery.” So in essence, the forger may actually be the hero.

Why did he insert a color in it? There are two different color values here. It’s not the same color.

Subsection 6 is about the seals. If you scroll down, Figure 19 is really an image under a color filter of the one that Obama submitted through the PDF. It’s only faintly there. If you scroll down to the next page, page 10, it’s actually invisible. In Figure 20, it’s almost not noticeable; it’s really a distortion in the background image. His first short-form is Figure 17, and you can clearly see that this thing was at least three inches from the bottom of the paper. I know the machine which embossed it; it was an electronic machine, not a hand stamp. It does a good job. You can clearly see it through their photographs.

Figure 18 is the positive – the inverted image from the microfilm copy of the Nordyke twins – and even if it was a microfilm, you can clearly see the embossment. It’s practically at the edge of the paper because the throat on those hand stamps won’t allow for very much distance between the edge of the paper and the edge of a two-and-one-quarter-inch seal. You can see it even on a microfilm copy. But we do not see it on his. That told me immediately that that was a second- or third-generation image from something else.

MRS. RONDEAU: Is there any stamp at all on the April 27 release?

MR. VOGT: No. There isn’t any, which means it’s not legal. Figure 21 was interesting: that was on a hand stamp, again, near the edge of the paper, less than an inch away from the edge, and you can clearly see the embossment. That’s an original, and it was from 1962.

Subsection 7 is the rubber stamp, which is skewed. That is normal; it’s a hand stamp, and nobody is trying to place the thing down by the pixel, but the one we have on Obama’s certificate of April 27 is about as straight as you can get with an eyeball. It’s only two pixels off over three inches. That’s been electronically leveled.

In Figure 23, the script on the capital “A” on “Alvin” in the signature, and the “X” in the word “TXE” were literally done by hitting pixels. They hit pixels to make something that looked like an “X,” but it’s not. When you blow it up, you can see it’s not an “X.” It’s something else. Again, it’s someone screaming at us, “This thing is a fraud!” That may be the most logical answer here.

Subsection 8 deals with the layers. This is embedded from within the PDF that the White House put up. It clearly shows from object 13-21 is the nine layers. It tells you the horizontal and vertical pixels of each one of the layers. Under each one of these headings, there’s a bunch of hexadecimal codes. This is where I pulled them all out and I sorted them, putting them in sequence. You have to actually open the file up in Wordpad and you’ll see exactly what I mean: just search for “style type/image” or something like that, and you’re going to find each one of the layers. There’s a bunch of layers in there, more than just these. Each one of the layers means something else. I could recognize it and know how to read some of the stuff. I could actually pull out one of these layers from the PDF and save it again, and that layer would disappear. You have to know how to do it, but it does tell you where the object starts and where the object ends. It’s something like an HTML, but it’s a different kind of code.

I put the links for videos that were on YouTube which explain the layers pretty well. I wanted to give these people credit; they deserve it. In Figure 25, I displayed the layer that has most of the type on it. As prima facie evidence, this thing is toast.

MRS. RONDEAU: What about the analyst from Canada whom Fox News featured who said that the image could be authentic?

Editor’s Note: The “leading expert” which Fox News quoted as having said, “You should not be so suspicious about this,” Jean-Claude Tremblay, states that his professional background includes more than 20 years in teaching Adobe products, Quark, and technical editing. It is this writer’s opinion that the title of the Fox News article, “Expert: No Doubt Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Legit,” is not an accurate reflection of Tremblay’s analysis of the birth certificate image, but rather, conjecture on the writer’s part.

It appears that Tremblay’s is the only analysis which Fox News has presented, despite the many reports and allegations that the image is a forgery.

MR. VOGT: On page 13, I wrote a rebuttal to discovery of the multi-layers found in the PDF. You’ll see in the last paragraph what my qualifications are for OCR. This guy knows nothing; he plainly does not know anything about it. You know something? Considering he wound up defending it on the 29th, the day after somebody found the layers, he would be my first suspect. If you looked at his qualifications, certified on a bunch of Adobe’s products, I would say he would be the first candidate I’d have for the one who put the thing together.

Somebody looked it up and said he was a supporter of Obama. Also, if they found a graphic artist who was sympathetic and was not from the country, there is less chance of his being subpoenaed to give testimony to Congress. They’re actually wrong about the investigation part; the reason is that there is a security treaty between the United States and Canada concerning national security, which this definitely does, and that means that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will be investigating this guy to find out. He can be extradited to the United States to testify. He is not exempt from prosecution.

MRS. RONDEAU: Why do you think no one from the FBI has gone out to Hawaii to investigate the forgery?

MR. VOGT: If you go to the next section, page 13, I say in the Conclusion section that it is a “Frankenstein certificate.” Some guy actually drew a picture of Obama looking like Frankenstein. They’re selling T-shirts like that; they got the idea from me.

But here’s the answer to your question: Orly said she has reported things to the FBI and they haven’t done anything with it. This is the way a law enforcement agency works: First, the FBI is part of the Justice Department, and the Justice Department is controlled by a guy who is an Obama handmaiden. Unless a policing agency is notified that a crime has been committed, they’re not going to bother with it. It’s nothing. No matter how many YouTube things are out there or things on the web, unless somebody formally notifies a policing agency like the FBI, nothing is going to be done, because they weren’t told a crime has been committed.

For instance, if a bank is robbed, the banker will call the police department, which will in turn call the FBI, because it’s their purview. The banks are insured by the FDIC; therefore, they robbed the federal government, and the FBI investigates. They collect the data, hopefully catch the criminal, and then they give it to a federal attorney who prosecutes. But again, they have to be told that a crime has been committed. That’s the key thing; no one has ever done it.

I did. I sent it off to the Director of the FBI and also to the Field Agent in Charge in Hawaii. I sent it off twice to each one in different ways, all by mail. Hawaii will probably get it earlier because of the mail screening that occurs in Washington, DC. However, the crime was committed both in Hawaii and in Washington, DC. It’s very possible, since I see that the form was modified on the day of its presentation and the day after, that somebody in the White House was modifying it.

MRS. RONDEAU: So they might not have created it, but now they have it and are modifying it.

MR. VOGT: Correct, so the crime has been committed in both places. When you read the law at the bottom of the report, and I included the sections in red that I want people to understand, you realize that it’s a very, very serious crime. This comes under the heading of defrauding the United States. Everybody in the White House who knows this thing, as well as in the Department of Health in Hawaii, is in huge trouble. They have no idea that just on the face of the document itself, and the security number, is 20 years in prison. Considering they flagrantly flaunted their arrogance and knew what they were doing was wrong for somebody to become President of the United States who wasn’t even a citizen is treasonous. If the prosecution goes to the level of treason, which it should be, these people go to prison for the rest of their lives.

Some of those people are going to be talking their heads off not to go to prison for the rest of their lives. What I’ve done is make it irrelevant where the guy was born. It’s no longer a case of trying to prove he was born in Kenya, Timbuctu, Manchuria or New York City; it’s now a simple, provable case of forgery in the first degree.

Without question, this is the greatest scandal in American history. Everybody agrees: nothing comes even remotely close; not the scandals in the Grant administration; in Harding’s Teapot Dome; in Watergate; Clinton was nothing…this tops everything.

Howard Coble, Obama birth certificate forged, Adobe Expert Mara Zebest video, 10 ex CIA agents stated that the image was fraudulent

Posted on June 29, 2011 by citizenwells| 10 Comments

Howard Coble, Obama birth certificate forged, Adobe Expert Mara Zebest video, 10 ex CIA agents stated that the image was fraudulent
“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense, to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″
Earlier today the Citizen Wells blog responded to a letter from Congressman Howard Coble of NC.
“My response to the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov.
1. Aside from the Orwellian language used to convince the public, the image itself looked suspicious. It did not look like other certified copies from Hawaii.
2. Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of Health, stated that the copies are computer generated. I am an expert on computer business systems and have worked with many graphics formats, software applications as well as OCR. This was an immediate red flag. Computer generated can mean many things.
3. Since this involves the presidency of the US, and they were “making an exception,” why did they not copy and certify Obama’s birth certificate as they have done for average citizens?
4. Why did Major General Paul Vallely state that 10 ex CIA agents stated that the image was fraudulent?
5. Why did Jana Winter of Fox News misrepresent or lie about what a OCR expert stated about the image? The expert, Jean Claude Tremblay, has since criticized Winter and Fox for the misrepresentation.
6. World Net Daily, in the past week, has presented 2 high level experts. One has questioned the image. The last one, Mara Zebest, calls it a forgery.
Mr. Coble, thank you for your response and attention. I believe that you care deeply about this country and have honorable intentions. It is with that belief that I will endeavor to provide compelling evidence for your attention. As a starting point, I suggest you speak with retired Major General Paul Vallely.
Respectfully,
Citizen WElls”
Mr. Coble and Congress, here is the first installment of more evidence against the image placed on WhiteHouse.gov and Barack Obama.
Adobe Expert Mara Zebest at the National Press Club June 29, 2011

CERTIFIGATE
WND Exclusive
Mathematical 'proof' Obama birth certificate a forgery
Prominent software engineer presents 'self-evident' analysis

Posted: July 05, 2011
8:28 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
WND

The signature of President Obama's mother on the White House-released long-form birth certificate provides a mathematically certain proof of forgery, according to a prominent software engineer who works as a high-level programmer for a state government.
The source spoke on condition his name not be used, fearing he might lose his job. He asserted that revealing his name is not necessary, because the analysis is self-evident.
Many computer experts have noted that the PDF Obama birth certificate released April 27 has nine layers when viewed in Adobe Illustrator.
Get the New York Times best-seller "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President," autographed by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.
Notably, the name "(Stanley) Ann Dunham Obama" is in two separate layers. "(Stanley) Ann D" is contained in Layer 8 while "unham Obama" is in Layer 9, as seen below in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1: Obama long-form birth certificate, White House Release, April 27. Overlay showing Layer 8 (green Background) separated from Layer 9 (white Background)

A close-up of a screen capture of Layer 8 can be seen in Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 2: Obama long-form birth certificate, White House Release, April 27. Close-up, Layer 9, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama signature.

"One of the changes, reflected by Layer 8, had me wondering the most," the software engineer told WND. "If you recall, this layer showed the mother's signature, along with the other two signatures on the image. Everything else was omitted, meaning the signatures were added as their own layer."
(Story continues below)
However, the last part of the mother's signature can only be seen in Layer 9, where it shows up, in bold as "unham Obama," distinct in appearance from the lighter "(Stanley) Ann D" in Layer 8.
In other words, the mother's signature is a composite image, formed when the image in Layer 8 is combined with the image in Layer 9.
"Graphics artists combine images day in and day out, taking parts of one image and over-laying another," he explained. "After adding multiple text layers, the composite image is saved to be placed into the final."
The key analysis focuses on the Ann Dunham signature contained in Layer 9.
"It's a disappointing signature," the software engineer said, "in that it cannot be Stanley Ann's unless she has perfect handwriting."
To prove this point, he brought up the birth certificate document in Windows Photo Viewer to magnify the "unham Obama" seen in Adobe Illustrator in Layer 9.
"After zooming into the maximum on this partial signature, I found that part of the name was in perfect alignment across the bottom, exactly one pixel from the bottom line of the text box for the signature."
The "unham" part of the mother's signature under magnification is demonstrated in Exhibit 3, with the "Obama" part of the mother's signature in Exhibit 4:

Exhibit 3: Mother's signature in Obama long-form birth certificate.

Exhibit 4: Mother's signature in Obama long-form birth certificate.

"I had to scrunch the image a bit to fit on the screen," he explained, but it still shows the perfect alignment of the pixels across the letters in 'unham' in the image above. The same perfect alignment is seen in the 'Obama' part of the mother's signature."
The signature, he insisted, provides mathematical proof the Obama birth certificate is a fraud.
"No person can write with mathematical perfection," he said. "It's impossible. But a computer can easily write with mathematical perfection."

Exhibit 5: Ann Dunham signature on Obama long-form birth certificate

Human signatures, he insisted, show imperfections such that some of the lettering will always drop below a mathematically perfect line drawn at the bottom of a word.
To prove the point, he pointed to examples of cursive handwriting generated by a computer on Fontspace.com, as seen in Exhibit 6.

Exhibit 6: Computer-generated cursive fonts (Fontspace.com)

The bottom of the computer-generated cursive handwriting as seen in Exhibit 5 produces a mathematically perfect bottom surface that plots straight-across on a horizontal line.
To stress the distinctiveness of the 'unham Obama' part of the mother's signature on the document, the software engineer examined under extreme magnification in the Windows Photo Viewer the signature of Dr. David A. Sinclair, the attending physician as described in the document, and found that pixels forming the signature extend below a mathematically perfect horizontal line drawn through the base of the signature, as seen in Exhibit 7.

Exhibit 7: Signature of Dr. David A. Sinclair on Obama long-form birth certificate

"Notice how Dr. Sinclair's signature meets and is over the line in may places," he observed. "It is not exactly one row of pixels parallel to the line."
The mother's signature provides mathematical proof the document is forged, he said.
"If the forger had wanted a perfect forgery, it would have been better to have a human being write in the 'unham Obama' part of the signature," he concluded. "Sometimes perfect detail can draw attention, and in this case, the hand-writing in Layer 9 was too perfect. No human being writes that mathematically perfect."