Dr. Orly Taitz Vindicated

Sheriff Arpaio’s ‘Cold Case Posse’ has released its findings on the April 2011 Birth Certificate posted as a PDF on whitehouse.gov. I had the privilege of being asked by Dr. Jerome Corsi to forward my legal research and Adobe Illustrator file on Obama’s ‘citizenship at birth’ to Detective Michael Zullo, who headed the ‘Cold Case Posse’ investigation.

Today, Dr. Taitz sent an email  notice to her followers and the press that she was ‘Vindicated.’ I agree. http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/watch-live-sheriff-arpaio-obama-birth-certificate-press-conference/

Dr. Orly Taitz Vindicated

Perhaps further investigation will acknowledge the FACT that the whitehouse.gov Birth Certificate was fabricated in Adobe Illustrator in order to kybosh sales and promotion of Dr. Corsi’s book release the following month, ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate.’

In addition, the document and further analysis will show that Barack Hussein Obama was illegitimate, not only at birth but as president; and this will aid in the deconstruction and reversal of his hundreds of Executive Orders.


Below is a photo with various Obama birth documents followed by multiple choice questions. Your job is to match the photo with the description, and comment whether ‘Real’ or ‘Unreal,’ that determination based on the Evidentiary Value of the Document in a Court of Law.

birth-certificate-long-form-art  A


kenyandocument C


SeptBirthCertificateLarge E

___  Forged document, fabricated in Adobe Photoshop

___  Facsimile of Hawaii form creating a Birth Certification for a Child Born Out-of-State, signed by Obama’s Hawaiian grandmother

___ Official document, signed and sealed by government official, of Obama birth data from original certificate

___ Database printout of birth data from Hawaii birth registration

___ Photocopy of original birth certificate


4 Responses to “Dr. Orly Taitz Vindicated”

  1. Dr. Conspiracy Says:

    The first “certificate” appears to be a collage of layers from Obama’s long form birth certificate PDF. The underlying document is an “Official document, signed and sealed by government official, of Obama birth data from original certificate.”

    The second is a real paper document that appears to have been created in Microsoft Word (based on font and letter spacing) printed, then stamped and photographed (it was also available in a scanned version). The convicted felon who created it claimed he got it in Kenya, and it is remotely possible that a Kenyan con man created it.

    The third is also a real paper document, created by someone trying to make a fool out of the birthers. It’s based on the real certificate of Jeffrey Bomford of South Australia.

    The fourth is the official Hawaiian state birth certificate for Barack Obama, signed and sealed by the director of vital records.

    The fifth most closely resembles your description, “Facsimile of Hawaii form creating a Birth Certification for a Child Born Out-of-State”; however, there was no such thing as an out of state birth certificate in Hawaii in 1961, so the word “facsimile” is inappropriate. “Fantasy” is a better word.

    I just dropped by to say goodbye. I consider any conceivable relevance of the birther movement to expire on January 20, and I’m going on to other things.

    Arpaio and Zullo’s little press conference will have no more effect than their previous two. Their “proof” is already starting to crumble (more on that soon I hope), and their unwillingness to release any of their forensic reports dooms the effort.

  2. paraleaglenm Says:

    First of all, I asked to match the images A through E to the descriptions, not to edit my descriptions. Secondly, the comment requested was on ‘Which document(s) would be evidentiary in a court of law.’

    Your first ‘match’ for A tries to subsume the description under a false pretense implying the image was a collage from an official document. False: The ‘collage’ was created out of ‘art’ ‘layers’ from the Adobe Illustrator ‘histories’ left embedded in the White House PDF. And being ‘Evidentiary’ is a trick question. The White House PDF is NOT EVIDENTIARY as it has been altered and is not an official copy . . . UNLESS it is evidence in court against Obama’s White House for forgery of an official document.

    If they can be validated by a Kenyan court, B and C would be evidentiary in a court of law. You assume there is forgery afoot, which cannot be determined except in the Kenyan court and by experts in the U.S. court that would supervise the Kenyan validation.

    D, if you read the notation at the bottom of the document, it is only Prima Facie Evidence. It is only evidentiary if not disproven by other records. It appears to be Real.

    E is a facsimile, and the theory that legislative history does not include 18-7 in 1961 is out there, but not cited. As a facsimile, it is NOT an official document and would therefore NOT be exempted by the Hearsay rules for official documents. So, another trick question.

    So, move along. We will be trying to undo the damage done by the illegitimately born and elected president, the traitor-in-chief . . . innocent citizens have died and will die because of this travesty.

  3. Pogue Moran (@PogueMoran) Says:

    ah lenny I see you’re still letting your mental health problems get the best of you. B and C would never be accepted in any court as there is no provenance to the documents. B was created by a convicted forger and conman and C was created from an Australian Certificate. A PDF isn’t evidentiary to begin with since it’s not the actual document but a scan of one. The paper document that was scanned is what would hold up in court as would the verifications issued by Onaka. Neither Kenyan document would stand up in court. 338-17.8 was created in 1982 so the document created by birthers with that on it would never hold up in court.

    So after all these years you still haven’t learned anything.

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      First of all, I don’t have any ‘mental health’ issues except PTSD. I was tested ;) and I function above the 98th percentile of the general population.
      Secondly, that is what I commented as well concerning B and C. A U.S. court would have to request certification of authenticity from a Kenyan court. This was attempted, but the U.S. court denied the motion. Shame.
      As I admitted, if you had bothered to read, I could not find the legislative history of 18-7 online. I suppose I could try the law library’s section on State Statutes, but I was hoping someone would provide the citation . . . which you have failed to do as well.
      I will stick by my analysis, that the only Evidentiary Value of A is proof that Obama violated Federal law. The ‘short form’ is only “prima facie” and worthless until the two Kenyan documents are verified as to authenticity.
      Actually, the ‘short form’ has some evidentiary value. It was printed out from a database created years after the Obama birth registration. Because the COLB (Certification of Live Birth) lacks witness names and the hospital (or licensed birthing facility), it proves there is no Birth Certificate per se, as the White House tried to foist on us April of 2011. Until you provide, as requested, the legislative history of 18-7, Haw Stat Rev 338-5 defines only two types of birth documentation: 1) a witnessed certificate from a licensed birthing facility, or; 2) an unwitnessed registration created by the Records Department after seeing the live infant and sworn statement of time and place of birth by the mother, a resident of Hawaii.
      My point is, you can’t have both registrations, witnessed and unwitnessed, just one or the other.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: