(And since this isn’t likely to live on whitehouse.gov forever, I also saved a copy of the PDF here.)
Obama should have no problem, then, asking the State of Hawaii to send an officially certified copy of the long-form Certificate directly to Congress under seal, just as was done for this certificate and this certificate.
Make it official. Have Hawaii send an officially certified copy of it, under seal, directly to the Congress.
Congress, not the media after all, has the Constitutional duty to ensure that the President and Vice President have qualified:
… if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
– From Section 3 of the 20th Amendment
If Obama balks at having the State of Hawaii send an official copy directly to Congress under seal, then that should set off flashing red sirens that the “document” just produced for the media is actually fraudulent.
If Obama does have the State of Hawaii send an official copy directly to Congress under seal, then we can put issue #1 behind us (Trust, but Verify), and move on to issue #2 (“Natural” born citizen).
UPDATE: There has been some discussion about the PDF having multiple layers. Some claim that the layers are the result of OCR having been run on a scanned image. I do not believe that explanation holds water, for the following reason…
1) Try searching the original PDF for the letter ‘e’ (the most commonly used letter in the English language). You will get a popup window that says, “Acrobat has finished searching the document. No matches were found.”
2) I ran OCR on the original PDF and saved it as a new PDF, which I have uploaded here. (https://itooktheredpill.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/birth-certificate-long-form-with-ocr.pdf)
3) Try searching the new, OCR-enabled PDF for the letter ‘e’. You will find multiple words containing the letter ‘e’.
CONCLUSION: The PDF that was “released” on the White House web site was NOT OCR-enabled.
So, what’s the new explanation for why that PDF is multi-layered?
If the original document is authentic and legitimate, why not “release” a hard copy of it directly from the State of Hawaii (the Certificate Authority, after all)?
Why are we asked to trust a multi-layered PDF on a web site, when that is not considered “acceptable documentation” by the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification?
One of two subpoenas:
HI Deputy Attorney General’s Response To Subpoenas (as OCR-searchable PDF)
Hawaii Deputy Attorney General Jill T. Nagamine did not specify what “procedural defects” led her to conclude that “Neither subpoena was issued or serviced upon my client in accordance with the requirements
of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), Rule 45″.
And she has no desire to specify what those “procedural defects” were. If those “procedural defects” were resolved, how could those subpoenas not qualify Orly Taitz as a person who has “a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record” under HRS § 338-18(b)(9):
The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
Isn’t a subpoena “an order of a court of competent jurisdiction”?
Hawaii Deputy Attorney General Jill T. Nagamine does not provide any more detail than this:
My client is not satisfied that you have a direct and tangible interest in the record you seek, and you have not claimed to have such an interest. Therefore, because you are unable to satisfy HRS § 338-18(b)(9), the Director of Health cannot provide to you the birth record you seek.
Based on the above, please be advised that this letter serves as written objection to your subpoena pursuant to Rule 45(c)(2)(B), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Is the problem that Orly did not explicitly “claim such an interest”?
Or is the problem with how the subpoena was (or wasn’t) served?