A court of New York State? Not authoritative.
Hawaii, on the other hand, issued a birth certificate.
Copies have circulated.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 20:08:24 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

A court of New York State? Not authoritative.
Hawaii, on the other hand, issued a birth certificate.
Copies have circulated.

Fraudulant copies.

Sucks to be you Lefties..doesnt it?


--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 13:15:38 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

On Sunday, July 3, 2011 5:11:10 AM UTC-7, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 20:08:24 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

A court of New York State? Not authoritative.
Hawaii, on the other hand, issued a birth certificate.
Copies have circulated.

Fraudulant copies.

It wasn't found that those were fraudulent by the New York court.
Nor by any other court. Strunk v. Paterson (2008) was on an issue
of New York state law, seems completely irrelevant.

It's common to issue copies of birth certificates; surely you don't
think possession of your own birth certificate means there isn't
a certificate on file elsewhere?

It has nothing to do with Strunk V paterson

It has everything to do with the fraudulant birth certs handed out from
the Whitehouse as "legitimate"

First was a Cert of Live birth..which prooved absolutely nothing

The second was an obvious and proven fraudulant construction.

9.3 million hits on Google..and some 1000 plus videos on YouTube to the
individual techniques of its forgery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g30VCl_cgk

Here is a single one. Not the best..but not the worst.

Enjoy

Gunner

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.