Cold Case Posse Report #2: July 17, 2012


Arpaio 2 in 2D: Shock of Zul­lo

The July 17, 2012 press con­fer­ence

Joe Arpaio Holds Press Con­fer­ence to Let Amer­i­ca Know He’s Still a Wingnut — Gawk­er head­line

After the spec­tac­u­lar Cold Case Pos­se’s March Mad­ness Press Conference/Book Launch, the intre­pid “inves­ti­ga­tors” took the Show That Nev­er Ends on the road to the Alo­ha State. On July 17, Sher­iff Joe Arpaio and Mike Zul­lo held a “breath­tak­ing” press con­fer­ence to reveal to the world what they found. As irony-chal­lenged Zul­lo explained: 

It’s unbe­liev­able how lit­tle infor­ma­tion we were able to find.”

Once again, has exam­ined the press releas­es, the claims, and the press con­fer­ence and con­cludes that:

  1. Left­over hash is once again recy­cled,  
  2. We know a heck of a lot more about sta­tis­tics, cod­ing, and research than the Cold Case Posse does,
  3. Hawaii is NOT a hotbed of gap­ing loop­holes for ille­gal immi­grants to crawl through to cit­i­zen­ship,
  4. No one in Hawaii want­ed to play in the CCP sand­box, and
  5. Mike Zul­lo needs a good tax attor­ney

Added 7/22/2012  Evi­dence is devel­op­ing that Hawaii used its own codes sep­a­rate and inde­pen­dent from the Fed­er­al codes. If this is cor­rect, then the CCP bla­tent­ly lied about sev­er­al claims. More at

    • Accord­ing to The 1961 Vital Sta­tis­tics of the US – Vol­ume 1: Natal­i­ty (Page 5–3), states sent micro­film copies of the even-num­bered birth cer­tifi­cates to the Nation­al Vital Sta­tis­tics Divi­sion, which then cod­ed onto punch­cards and tab­u­lat­ed. The fed­er­al sta­tis­ti­cal pro­cess­ing was NOT done in Hawaii. Thus there was no rea­son for Hawaii to use the fed­er­al codes, and no cod­ing for fed­er­al pur­pos­es was done in Hawaii. 
      • We do note that all the 1961 LFBCs that we have seen (both odd and even) have pen­cilled codes.  (See: Num­ber­ing Claim for links to those LFBCs.)

Birther Hash Rehash: Loose Ends from the Last Press Con­fer­ence

  • Claim: No foren­sic exam­in­er com­pa­nies would look at the doc­u­ment because of the nature of the doc­u­ment,
    • FALSE and MISLEADING. Any court-cer­ti­fied foren­sic expert would cer­ti­fy ONLY an orig­i­nal doc­u­ment as authen­tic — not a copy, and cer­tain­ly not an online image of a doc­u­ment. How­ev­er, experts can and have issued opin­ions on the file itself. Some experts have even issued reports for World News Dai­ly. The Cold Case Posse should have been aware of these reports via Jerome Cor­si, reporter for WND
    • Accord­ing to WND Reporter Aaron Klein, WND com­mis­sioned reports from three cre­den­tialed doc­u­ment exam­in­ers. WND nev­er pub­lished these reports. 
      • Ivan Zatkovich of eComp Con­sult­ing has 10 years of expe­ri­ence as an expert wit­ness in state and fed­er­al courts, civ­il and crim­i­nal lit­i­ga­tion, doing doc­u­ment val­i­da­tion. Mr. Zatkovich has post­ed his report on the Inter­net. 
        • His con­clu­sion on April 29, 2011: “All of the mod­i­fi­ca­tions to the PDF doc­u­ment that can be iden­ti­fied are con­sis­tent with some­one enhanc­ing the leg­i­bil­i­ty of the doc­u­ment.”
      • Jon Berry­hill of Berry­hill Com­put­er Foren­sics has pro­vid­ed expert tes­ti­mo­ny in and been cer­ti­fied by Cal­i­for­nia and Fed­er­al courts as an expert in the field of com­put­er crime and com­put­er foren­sic analy­sis. 
        • His con­clu­sion on May 1, 2011: for a com­plete analy­sis, access to the orig­i­nal doc­u­ment would be best.
  • Claim: No court would accept the doc­u­ment, you couldn’t get a court to accept the doc­u­ment as authen­tic. 
    • MISLEADING: The online PDF isn’t a legal doc­u­ment. No court would allow an online image of a state-issued doc­u­ment. That’s why a cer­ti­fied paper doc­u­ment would be sub­mit­ted to the court in case of a tri­al or hear­ing. If Barack Obama’s cer­ti­fied paper birth cer­tifi­cate were prop­er­ly sub­mit­ted to a court, it would be accept­ed under the Fed­er­al Rules of Evi­dence Rule 803 (9). 
    • This was actu­al­ly dis­cussed in an admin­is­tra­tive hear­ing for a New Jer­sey Bal­lot Chal­lenge. Video, start­ing at 27:50
    • (Added 7/19/2012) This is also why no one in Hawaii can answer ques­tions about the online doc­u­ment but they CAN ver­i­fy the INFORMATION on the file to par­ties eli­gi­ble to get a ver­i­fi­ca­tion. It’s not because they believe it to be forged or not, they did­n’t scan the doc­u­ment and had no con­trol over the paper doc­u­ments once they left the DOH. The PDF is out­side their chain of cus­tody. The INFORMATION on it, how­ev­er, has been ver­i­fied twice for the Sec­re­tary of State in Ari­zona, and a Fed­er­al Dis­trict Court in Mis­sis­sip­pi.   
  • Claim: (Added 7/19/2012) Zul­lo said: “We ver­i­fied that they did not make a PDF file at the Depart­ment of Health in Hawaii. If the Depart­ment of Health in Hawaii did not release this PDF com­put­er gen­er­at­ed file, and this is not mere­ly a pho­to­graph of a doc­u­ment, some­one else cre­at­ed it. That [point­ing at ‘LFBC’] is a forgery. There is no legal author­i­ty for any­body, includ­ing the Pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States or his staff, to make an Hawai­ian birth cer­tifi­cate.  Com­put­erised, hand writ­ten, in cray­on, does­n’t mat­ter what it is, the only peo­ple that have the author­i­ty to do this is the Depart­ment of Health in Hawaii.  Any way you twist and turn with this doc­u­ment, it is plagued with prob­lems. This doc­u­ment does­n’t even meet the test of the Depart­ment of Health’s own pri­ma facia (pho­net­ic) evi­dence require­ment, which is the low­est form of evi­dence that you could get. It is in con­flict with itself on its face. It’s time for this cha­rade to stop.”
    • The online PDF file and print­outs made from it are not offi­cial cer­ti­fied birth cer­tifi­cates, they are the IMAGE of an offi­cial cer­ti­fied birth cer­tifi­cate that was issued in April 2011. The online PDF exists because the Inter­net is an effi­cient way to show the INFORMATION on the offi­cial cer­ti­fied paper doc­u­ment to the pub­lic. This elec­tron­ic file was nev­er meant to be used for offi­cial pur­pos­es. That’s what the paper doc­u­ments sent from Hawaii to Pres­i­dent Oba­ma are for. 
  • Claim: (Added 7/19/2012) The Cold Case Posse inves­ti­ga­tion is a seri­ous, legit­i­mate legal inves­ti­ga­tion. 
    • Objec­tion, the claim assumes facts not in evi­dence so far. 

Vital Sta­tis­tics Cod­ing and Oper­a­tions

  • Claim: Inves­ti­ga­tors learned that Hawaii Depart­ment of Health uti­lizes a cod­ing sys­tem defined by the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment to cat­e­go­rize and code the required infor­ma­tion on all Birth Cer­tifi­cates reg­is­tered by the state includ­ing those reg­is­tered in 1961. 
  • Claim: This process involves writ­ing spe­cif­ic num­ber codes by hand and in pen­cil, placed next to rel­e­vant infor­ma­tion con­tained on the birth cer­tifi­cate. 
    • TRUE. This is com­mon when inputting data from one for­mat to anoth­er, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the ear­ly days of com­put­ing before Opti­cal Char­ac­ter Recog­ni­tion (OCR) process­es. 
    • NOTE: Accord­ing to the Divi­sion of Data Pro­cess­ing, Vital Sta­tis­tics Pro­gram­ming Branch, Tape File Infor­ma­tion, 1960–1961 Natal­i­ty Tape Files for the Unit­ed States, the Parent’s races were not main­tained as part of the tape file. This is not the same as say­ing their races were not report­ed, only that they were not ulti­mate­ly input and saved as part of the for­mal US Natal­i­ty File. As such, no spe­cif­ic cod­ing key is doc­u­ment­ed for either parent’s race, but lat­er ver­sions of the Natal­i­ty File show with­out excep­tion that a sin­gle shared numer­ic key was used for the race of fathers, moth­ers and chil­dren . In spite of the of fact that parent’s races were not part of the 1961 Natal­i­ty File, cir­ca 1961 Hawai­ian Birth Cer­tifi­cates (which include Obama’s) reg­u­lar­ly show pen­ciled nota­tions for race of both par­ents.

      At the same time, the doc­u­ment does indi­cate that the Child’s race was main­tained in the tape file, and the spe­cif­ic cod­ing key is pro­vid­ed. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, Hawai­ian birth cer­tifi­cates (in fact, most if not all state’s birth cer­tifi­cates) do not indi­cate a race for the child at all. That detail can only have been deter­mined from the parent’s races, thus account­ing for why the parent’s races were cod­ed even though they did not nec­es­sar­i­ly need to be report­ed.

      That this was the process fol­lowed is made more explic­it in lat­er years. For exam­ple, the tape lay­out from 1968 shows unam­bigu­ous­ly that the codes for race of father, moth­er and child were all the same, and also that the child’s race was “Deter­mined from Par­ents Race.”

  • Claim: The cod­ing num­bers seen on the President’s LFBC are not con­sis­tent with the cod­ing respons­es required by the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment to match the infor­ma­tion pre­sent­ed. The codes for Father’s Race and Occu­pa­tion (Box­es 9 and 12B) mean “Unknown or unstat­ed” and didn’t orig­i­nal­ly have any­thing typed in the box. The incor­rect codes indi­cate that the President’s LFBC has been altered or amend­ed.
    • FALSE. The video pre­sent­ed at the press con­fer­ence showed a por­tion of what is pur­port­ed to be the Vital Sta­tis­tics Instruc­tion Man­u­al for 1961. THIS IS FALSE. More on this at
      • The pic­tured key is actu­al­ly from the 1968 Natal­i­ty Tape File lay­out instruc­tions, which is avail­able here. The lay­out for 1961 is dif­fer­ent and avail­able here. The only key in either tape lay­out is for “Race of the Child.” (We believe that the Race of the Moth­er and Race of the Father codes are the same, as there was no need to spell out the same cod­ing 3 sep­a­rate times.) The 1969 tape lay­out is also avail­able and dif­fer­ent from either 1961 or 1968. 
    • Know­ing the cor­rect year is thus crit­i­cal to read­ing the code.
    • Note the crit­i­cal dif­fer­ence between these lay­outs: 

1969 tape layout

In 1968, Code 9 in Box 9 meant “Unknown or not stated.(Race of par­ents only)” 


In 1961, Code 9 in Box 9 (Father’s Race) meant “Oth­er non­white.”

    • By using the wrong key, the Cold Case Posse has come to a com­plete­ly erro­neous con­clu­sion. 
    • The cor­rect code for 1961 was used — “African” is cod­ed as “Oth­er non­white.” A coder see­ing “African” in the field can­not con­clude that the entrant was negro or anoth­er race since African isn’t a race as defined under code. There­fore the prop­er code was 9 since the race was unknown to the coder.
    • The CCP video also used the same key for box 12B, Father’s Kind of Busi­ness or Indus­try. Accord­ing to the tape lay­out, this field was not report­ed to the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. Since the man­u­al is miss­ing, we have no infor­ma­tion on what a 9 in that field meant but we know it isn’t the same cod­ing as Box 9. 
    • For much more on the codes used, see Doc­tor Conspiracy’s excel­lent series of arti­cles. 
    • The source for this error may be a fraud­u­lent arti­cle pub­lished in The Dai­ly Pen, an online birther blog that has delib­er­ate­ly manip­u­lat­ed images to present false “evi­dence” and has made false alle­ga­tions about one of Oba­ma’s attor­neys in a bal­lot chal­lenge. 
  • Claim: Inves­ti­ga­tors tracked down the per­son who was the local reg­is­trar at the time of Obama’s birth  who alleged­ly signed and cod­ed the doc­u­ment which Oba­ma now says proves his birth place as Hawaii. Ver­na K. Lee, now  a 95 year-old woman, alleged­ly signed the doc­u­ment on August 8, 1961. 
    • TRUE: Both birthers and debunkers dis­cov­ered the name and address of Mrs. Lee a year ago. Birthers (includ­ing Jerome Cor­si) had spec­u­lat­ed that “U.K.L.Lee” was a joke by the forg­er and referred to the Hawai­ian instru­ment. Her sig­na­ture appears on oth­er Hawai­ian birth cer­tifi­cates. 
  • Claim: Mrs. Lee pro­vid­ed infor­ma­tion about the vital infor­ma­tion codes and their cor­re­spond­ing mean­ings. 
    • UNKNOWN.  Accord­ing to Mike Zul­lo, Mrs. Lee was inter­viewed by Reporter Jerome Cor­si by tele­phone while Mike Zul­lo record­ed the call. We have no actu­al evi­dence that this call took place, what she actu­aly said, and whether or not her rec­ol­lec­tions matched the infor­ma­tion obtained from oth­er sources. 
  • Claim: The infor­ma­tion Mrs. Lee pro­vid­ed chal­lenges the President’s claim that his birth­place in 1961 was the Kapi­olani Mater­ni­ty and Gyne­co­log­i­cal Hos­pi­tal. 
    • UNKNOWN. The Cold Case Posse didn’t pro­vide a tran­script of the con­ver­sa­tion, but we do know that she was inter­viewed by Jerome Cor­si (who iden­ti­fied him­self as a reporter and not as a mem­ber of the CCP).  FURTHER, this does not com­port with any known inves­tiga­tive pro­ce­dure, as Cor­si was both the source of vir­tu­al­ly all the claims aired in the March CCP report, AND the orig­i­nal insti­ga­tor of the CCP inves­ti­ga­tion itself, through and by the Ari­zona Sur­prise Tea Par­ty, who cre­at­ed and signed a peti­tion to Arpaio at his urg­ing. So Cor­si has a deep and doc­u­ment­ed vest­ed inter­est in cre­at­ing new claims and per­pet­u­at­ing the CCP.  We are deeply con­cerned about Cor­si tak­ing advan­tage of an elder­ly lady under pos­si­bly false premis­es. 
  • Claim: The num­ber on Obama’s birth cer­tifi­cate proves the birth occurred some­where else. 
    • FALSEUnder Con­struc­tion.Doc­u­ments came into the reg­is­trar in region­al batch­es,Con­sec­u­tive­ly num­bered in sequence by batch, region­al offices in sep­a­rate batch­es, Certs were num­bered at the end of the month, Even num­bered sub­mit­ted to feds, Bates stamp (numer­i­cal stam­per) 


      • Ah’Nee – 09945 – August 23rd
      • Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – August 5th
      • Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638 – August 5th
      • Oba­ma, Barack – 10641 – August 4th
      • Suna­hara, Vir­ginia — 11080- August 4, 1961 (???) Vir­ginia Suna­hara was born at Wahi­awa Gen­er­al in a dif­fer­ent city (accord­ing to birthers)
      • Waidelich, Stig – 10920 – August 5th
  • Claim: Micro­film would show orig­i­nal, record could be amend­ed at any time and ver­i­fi­ca­tion wouldn’t show it
    • The State of Hawaii has nev­er con­firmed that micro­film or micro­fiche of cir­ca 1961 birth cer­tifi­cates even exists. If it does exist, the same law that pro­hibits release of the President’s birth cer­tifi­cate to any­one except per­sons with a direct and tan­gi­ble inter­est (HRS 338–18) would pro­hib­it the release of the micro­film or micro­fiche as well. Note that, if it exists, the micro­film or micro­fiche would con­tain images of birth cer­tifi­cates of chil­dren born around the same time as Pres­i­dent Oba­ma. Mak­ing these images pub­lic or allow­ing inspec­tion by non-DOH per­sons would vio­late the pri­va­cy of these pri­vate cit­i­zens. 

 Bor­der Patrol: For­eign Births

  • Claim: Arpaio and his inves­ti­ga­tors have learned that for decades and remain­ing today, Hawaii has extreme­ly loose poli­cies regard­ing birth records — who can acquire them and how they are dis­trib­uted.  
    • FALSE. Hawai­ian laws are sim­i­lar to oth­er states and fol­low fed­er­al guide­lines. The CCP has mis­read applic­a­ble statutes. Joshua Wisch, Spe­cial Assis­tant to the state’s Attor­ney Gen­er­al, said in a state­ment Tues­day: “Regard­ing the lat­est alle­ga­tions from a sher­iff in Ari­zona, they are untrue, mis­in­formed, and mis­con­strue Hawaii law. … Not only are Hawaii’s vital records some of the best man­aged, but they also have some of the strongest restric­tions on access to pre­vent iden­ti­ty theft and fraud.  
  • Claim: Hawaii reg­is­ters chil­dren born out­side Hawaii and gives them Hawaii birth cer­tifi­cates, there­fore no Hawaii birth cer­tifi­cates can be trust­ed. These poli­cies appear to be in direct con­tra­dic­tion to U.S. Immi­gra­tion pol­i­cy, a gap­ing loop­hole that makes it pos­si­ble for for­eign born peo­ple to legal­ly estab­lish U.S. cit­i­zen­ship.
    • FALSE. Hawaii (and oth­er states) do pro­vide birth cer­tifi­cates for chil­dren born out of state, but those birth cer­tifi­cates NEVER say the child was born in Hawaii. The birth cer­tifi­cate will always give the actu­al loca­tion of birth. 
    • Accord­ing to Wisch, “The pur­pose of sec­tion 338–17.8, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), is to accom­mo­date for­eign-born indi­vid­u­als whose par­ents were res­i­dents of Hawaii but were tem­porar­i­ly out­side of this state due to employ­ment or mil­i­tary ser­vice. Sim­i­lar to sec­tion 338–20.5, HRS, which pro­vides for a cer­tifi­cate of for­eign birth, any­one who receives a birth cer­tifi­cate under this sec­tion would have not­ed on their birth cer­tifi­cate the phys­i­cal loca­tion of their actu­al birth. It does not con­fer cit­i­zen­ship, which is, of course, a pow­er of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment.” … “We also note that sec­tion 338–17.8 was not passed until 1982, so it can­not apply to Pres­i­dent Oba­ma, who was born at the Kapi­olani Mater­ni­ty and Gyne­co­log­i­cal Hos­pi­tal in Hon­olu­lu in 1961, as is reflect­ed on his cer­tifi­cate of live birth, a copy of which can be viewed on the White House web­site, a link to which is pro­vid­ed on DOH’s web­site.”
  • Claim: (Added 7/22/2012) The CCP found a 1982 let­ter from the March 1, 1982, from then Hawai­ian Direc­tor of Health to Hawai­ian State Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Her­bert Segawa, who was Chair­man on the House Com­mit­tee on Health, about reg­is­ter­ing out of state births. The only con­cern the direc­tor had was about staffing.   The CCP pre­sent­ed this let­ter to show that Hawaii is irre­spon­si­ble and uncon­cerned about the immi­gra­tion and nation­al secu­ri­ty impli­ca­tions of this law.
    • MISLEADING. In the let­ter, the Direc­tor of Health says he is con­cerned that this new law will cre­ate more work for the DoH and they might need more mon­ey to imple­ment it. He does not express con­cern that the state of Hawaii would be issu­ing birth cer­tifi­cates stat­ing a per­son was born in Hawaii when the per­son was actu­al­ly born some­where else.  In fact, the rea­son the DoH did not express con­cern about attribut­ing Hawai­ian birth to peo­ple born else­where is because the law does not do that. Birth cer­tifi­cates issued under this law state the per­son­’s actu­al place of birth.
      • The let­ter does show that Hawaii did NOT issue Hawai­ian birth cer­tifi­cates to out-of-coun­try biths pri­or to the law being passed and had no idea how many peo­ple would take advan­tage of that.   
  • Claim: Unat­tend­ed births could be reg­is­tered by per­sons sim­ply know­ing of the birth’s occur­rence. The DOH had no inves­tiga­tive body to inves­ti­gate out of hos­pi­tal births. 
    • IRRELEVANT. Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma was born at Kapi­olani, a hos­pi­tal, thus even if out-of-hos­pi­tal births some­how war­rant­ed “inves­ti­ga­tion,” his would not be in that cat­e­go­ry. 
      • Out-of-hos­pi­tal births would not show the hos­pi­tal name, they would show the address of the actu­al birth.
      • Every state has pro­ce­dures for late or delayed birth reg­is­tra­tion. In every case, the Depart­ment of Health inves­ti­gates unat­tend­ed births. It takes a while for the paper­work, the doc­tor’s exams, the inter­views. Hon­olu­lu in 1961 had 14 unat­tend­ed births. There was no need for a ded­i­cat­ed inves­tiga­tive body for such a min­i­mal num­ber of births. 
  • Claim: A Hawai­ian ver­i­fi­ca­tion only proves DOH has a record on file, it doesn’t say if the record has been altered or amend­ed. 
    • FALSE. While it is con­ceiv­able the COLB, print­ed in 2007 from data com­put­er­ized in the 1980s, com­prised ‘altered or amend­ed’ records, that idea was put to rest with the release of the LFBC, which con­tained exact­ly the same infor­ma­tion (plus addi­tion­al infor­ma­tion). Thus no offi­cial alter­ation occurred after the record was filed Aug. 8, 1961, and no offi­cial alter­ation occurred pri­or to Aug. 8, 1961 because the record did­n’t exist yet. Under Con­struc­tion

  • Claim: The Ver­i­fi­ca­tion doesn’t ver­i­fy the facts on the birth record as the record could con­tain addi­tion­al infor­ma­tion that would negate the ver­i­fi­ca­tion. 
    • FALSE. The idea that “ver­i­fi­ca­tions don’t ver­i­fy” is one the more absurd asser­tions in Birthis­tan’s epic his­to­ry of absur­di­ty. Any one piece of data in the ver­i­fi­ca­tion (e.g., Place of Birth) has only one offi­cial val­ue. That val­ue, as main­tained in offi­cial records, is what was ver­i­fied. There is zero chance that there is a sec­ond, secret, super­sed­ing val­ue that you can only get access to by say­ing mag­ic words.
  • Claim: Doc­u­ment has been tam­pered with, only way to get doc­u­ment to do what it does is bla­tant manip­u­la­tion.  Experts Tim Solet­ti, Jr and Gar­rit Pap­pit, work­ing inde­pen­dent­ly, couldn’t dupli­cate the lay­ers in the doc­u­ment even though they each con­duct­ed over 600 sep­a­rate tests, one using a Mac. Under Con­struc­tion
    • Epec­ti­tus wrote: Here’s my imme­di­ate thoughts on Gar­ret­t’s pathet­ic work. (I can call him names, we have crossed swords on sev­er­al forums). 
      • Accord­ing to Zul­lo, Pap­pit (and the oth­er guy) per­formed some “600 tests” each that sup­pos­ed­ly exam­ined all the “known” opti­miza­tion algo­rithms on both MS-Dos and Mac machines. Giv­en that such algo­rithms behave dif­fer­ent­ly depend­ing on what hard­ware is used (to include the scan­ner) what soft­ware is used to process cre­ate the PDF and then what soft­ware is used to opti­mize it, what oper­at­ing sys­tems (each ver­sion of each oper­at­ing sys­tem is dif­fer­ent), what tog­gles are cho­sen on the soft­ware… well start doing the math. “600 tests” can­not be but the tini­est frac­tion of a per­cent of the pos­si­ble com­bi­na­tions. Con­ser­v­a­tive­ly, I cal­cu­late there are hun­dreds of thou­sands of dif­fer­ent pos­si­bil­i­ties. Pap­pit fail.” 
      • The out­put of any dig­i­tal opti­miza­tion process is depen­dent on such a broad suite of hardware/software/setting vari­ables that there are lit­er­al­ly hun­dreds of thou­sands of dif­fer­ent com­bi­na­tions that would have to be checked before any com­pe­tent inves­ti­ga­tor could con­fi­dent­ly assert that the White House PDF was not the result of an ordi­nary opti­miza­tion process. But accord­ing to Zul­lo, Papit attempt­ed a mere 600 such tests. And based on Papit’s report, most of them must have been redun­dant.

        Papit’s report is the func­tion­al equiv­a­lent of toss­ing a fish­ing line into Lake Meade, reel­ing in an emp­ty fish hook ten times, and then declar­ing Lake Meade devoid of fish.”

  • Claim: The CCP searched for oth­er states that reg­is­tered for­eign births and couldn’t find any. They con­clude that Hawaii is unique in this law. Under Con­struc­tion
    • FALSE. All states have pro­ce­dures to reg­is­ter for­eign adop­tions, which result in a birth cer­tifi­cate for that state. In addi­tion, some states have laws sim­i­lar to Hawaii’s that allow res­i­dent par­ents whose child is born out­side the state to reg­is­ter the birth. 

Can we reg­is­ter the birth of our child that was born in anoth­er coun­try?

Yes. You may reg­is­ter the birth of your child who was born in a coun­try oth­er than the Unit­ed States with the Divi­sion of Vital Records if either par­ent is a cit­i­zen of the Unit­ed States and a legal res­i­dent of the Com­mon­wealth of Penn­syl­va­nia. The appro­pri­ate forms and instruc­tions may be request­ed from the Divi­sion of Vital Records.

    • Ari­zona: A. The state reg­is­trar shall cre­ate and reg­is­ter a State of Ari­zona Cer­tifi­cate of For­eign Birth for an adopt­ed per­son who sat­is­fies all of the fol­low­ing: 1. Was born in a for­eign coun­try. 2. Is not a Unit­ed States cit­i­zen. 3. Has gone through a com­plet­ed adop­tion process in a for­eign coun­try before com­ing to the Unit­ed States. 4. Has an IR‑3 stamped pass­port.
    • Hawaii: (a)  The depart­ment of health shall estab­lish a Hawaii cer­tifi­cate of birth for a per­son born in a for­eign coun­try and for whom a final decree of adop­tion has been entered in a court of com­pe­tent juris­dic­tion in Hawaii, when it receives the fol­low­ing:
      • (1) A prop­er­ly cer­ti­fied copy of the adop­tion decree, or cer­ti­fied abstract there­of on a form approved by the depart­ment; and 

(2) A copy of any inves­ti­ga­to­ry report and rec­om­men­da­tion which may have been pre­pared by the [direc­tor of human ser­vices]; and

(3) A report on a form to be approved by the depart­ment of health set­ting forth the fol­low­ing:

(A) Date of assump­tion of cus­tody;
(B) Sex;
© Col­or or race;
(D) Approx­i­mate age of child;
(E) Name and address of the per­son or per­sons adopt­ing said child;
(F) Name giv­en to child by adop­tive par­ent or par­ents;
(G) True or prob­a­ble coun­try of birth. The true or prob­a­ble coun­try of birth shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be deter­mined by approx­i­ma­tion. This report shall con­sti­tute an orig­i­nal cer­tifi­cate of birth; and

(4) A request that a new cer­tifi­cate of birth be estab­lished.

(b) After prepa­ra­tion of the new cer­tifi­cate of birth in the new name of the adopt­ed per­son, the depart­ment of health shall seal and file the cer­ti­fied copy of the adop­tive decree, the inves­ti­ga­to­ry report and rec­om­men­da­tion of the direc­tor of human ser­vices if any, the report con­sti­tut­ing the orig­i­nal cer­tifi­cate of birth, and the request for a new cer­tifi­cate of birth. The sealed doc­u­ments may be opened by the depart­ment only by an order of a court of record or when request­ed in accor­dance with sec­tion 578–14.5 or 578–15. The new cer­tifi­cate of birth shall show the true or prob­a­ble for­eign coun­try of birth, and that the cer­tifi­cate is not evi­dence of Unit­ed States cit­i­zen­ship for the child for whom it is issued or for the adop­tive par­ents. [L 1979, c 203, §3; am L 1990, c 338, §3]

  • Claim: There is ram­pant fraud in birth cer­tifi­cates. There­fore no birth cer­tifi­cate can be trust­ed as the only proof of place of birth. 
    • MISLEADING and WRONG CONCLUSION. Mis­use of birth cer­tifi­cates for iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, and fraud and forgery are indeed major sources of Iden­ty Theft. Stolen and coun­ter­feit doc­u­ments can be used to cre­ate new iden­ti­ties. Accord­ing to the Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices’ 2000 Report of Birth Cer­tifi­cate Fraud, a birth cer­tifi­cate on its own can’t be matched to an adult indi­vid­ual and thus can’t be used as a method of iden­ti­fi­ca­tion. But that doesn’t mean that the data on it is mean­ing­less — par­tic­u­lar­ly when the issu­ing agency inde­pen­dent­ly con­firms that the data on the cer­ti­fied paper match­es what’s in the actu­al vital record. The BC says that a birth occurred to those peo­ple, in that place, at that time, of a par­tic­u­lar gen­der and a spe­cif­ic name. It DOESN’T say that the per­son pre­sent­ing it is the same per­son as on the BC. That’s what a proof of iden­ti­ty does — it match­es the data to the indi­vid­ual.
      • The entire DHHS report is about doc­u­ment fraud by alter­ing, coun­ter­feit­ing, or obtain­ing birth cer­tifi­cates. It has noth­ing to do with any fraud relat­ed to the orig­i­nal birth record kept by the issu­ing agency unless the record is a delayed or out-of-hos­pi­tal birth. Since the Hawai­ian Dept. of Health has repeat­ed­ly (and under 2 admin­is­tra­tions) said that what appears on Obama’s BC is what appears in the record, and the birth took place in a hos­pi­tal less than a week before the birth was record­ed, those pro­ce­dur­al oppor­tu­ni­ties for fraud didn’t exist.
  • Claim: Oba­ma’s birth cer­tifi­cate there­fore can’t be relied on as proof of birth in Hawaii. 
    • FALSE. After 10 months of research, the Cold Case Posse has not uncov­ered a sin­gle exam­ple of a fraud­u­lent­ly issued State of Hawaii birth cer­tifi­cate. They have not pro­vid­ed evi­dence of even one child born some­where oth­er than the state of Hawaii who was issued a birth cer­tifi­cate stat­ing the child was born in Hawaii. They have not shown any­thing indi­cat­ing that Barack Oba­ma was born any­where but Hawaii. They have pro­vid­ed absolute­ly noth­ing to back up their asser­tion that there is ram­pant birth cer­tifi­cate fraud in Hawaii.


  • Claim: Inves­ti­ga­tors met with the Hawaii Assis­tant  Attor­ney Gen­er­al, Jill Nagamine.  Nagamine refused to give Sheriff’s inves­ti­ga­tors per­mis­sion to see the orig­i­nal birth doc­u­men­ta­tion held by the Hawaii Depart­ment of Health which was used to cre­ate the President’s long form birth cer­tifi­cate. Fur­ther­more, Nagamine refused to ver­i­fy whether the PDF birth cer­tifi­cate released by the White House is in fact an exact copy of the doc­u­ment released to the President’s attor­neys.  
    • TRUE. Hawaii state law restricts who can access vital records and who can get offi­cial ver­i­fi­ca­tion of infor­ma­tion in those records. Zul­lo, Cor­si, and the deputy from the Threats Divi­sion of the MCSO aren’t among the par­ties enti­tled to see vital records. The CCP’s trip to Hawaii doesn’t change that.  
  • Claim: (Cor­rect­ed from Tran­script 7/19/2012) Zul­lo said ” At one point in the con­ver­sa­tion I held up a copy of that doc­u­ment [indi­cates LFBC] and I asked her point blank ‘could you at least tell me, is this a copy of the doc­u­ment that you pro­vid­ed Mr Oba­ma’s attor­ney’s?’ She accused me again of want­i­ng a ver­i­fi­ca­tion of a birth cer­tifi­cate and point­ed me back to her statutes. 
      • I said to her, if I had to present my dri­vers license to the pub­lic for what­ev­er rea­son and I hand­ed my dri­vers license to you and you scanned it into a com­put­er, but then you decide to change some infor­ma­tion around; maybe move some infor­ma­tion around, and then you dis­play it, is that my dri­vers license? 
      • Her response to me was, ‘but you still have a dri­vers license’. Y’know, we’re trained to under­stand what peo­ple are say­ing. The answer to that should have been ‘no’, but what she’s telling me is, that’s prob­a­bly not what we released, but he still has a birth cer­tifi­cate. That’s what she’s say­ing to me.” 
    • MISLEADING. Pres­i­dent Oba­ma request­ed two copies of his cer­ti­fied birth cer­tifi­cate, which the Hawaii DOH sent. A staffer at the White House scanned the paper copy and post­ed the image as a PDF on the offi­cial White House web­site. Zul­lo print­ed out a copy of that image and showed it to Nagamine. So her state­ment that the copy of the PDF “was not what Hawaii issued but that there is a birth cer­tifi­cate for Oba­ma” was cor­rect. Zullo’s impli­ca­tion that the infor­ma­tion on the PDF would thus not match the orig­i­nal record is false.  
  • Claim: Alvin Ona­ka wouldn’t meet with the CCP
    • Dr. Alvin T. Ona­ka is the Reg­is­trar of Vital Sta­tis­tics for the State of Hawaii. He referred the CCP’s ques­tions to Assis­tant Attor­ney Gen­er­al Jill Nagamine, the lawyer for the Hawaii Depart­ment of Health. Birthers have false­ly accused Mr. Ona­ka of com­mit­ting crimes. He has been named as a defen­dant in sev­er­al birther law­suits. There is noth­ing unusu­al about his ask­ing his lawyer to speak on his behalf.
    • (Added 7/19/2012) The CCP went to the Depart­ment of Health as their first stop in Hawaii. Zul­lo and Mack­iewicz arrived unan­nounced and with­out an appoint­ment. They approached a secu­ri­ty guard, iden­ti­fied them­selves, and asked to see Dr. Ona­ka. 
      • We want­ed to talk to the State Reg­is­trar, Mr Alvin Ona­ka and ask him a sim­ple ques­tion. ‘Sir, did you val­i­date this doc­u­ment, the doc­u­ment that has been pre­sent­ed by the White House?’ … We were told imme­di­ate­ly Mr Ona­ka does­n’t speak to the pub­lic. Detec­tive Mack­owitz advised him that ‘we’re not the pub­lic. We’re the police. We’re here con­duct­ing an inves­ti­ga­tion. Is there some­one else we could talk to?’ ” See Tran­script, 36:19.

        … The Deputy Attor­ney Gen­er­al comes walk­ing out, iden­ti­fies her­self and basi­cal­ly tells us again that Mr Ona­ka could­n’t talk to us. Detec­tive Mack­owitz asked her if there was a place we could speak in pri­vate. They said we could find an office that we could use for about fif­teen min­utes, and we went into that office.” See Tran­script 38:00. 

  • Claim:The Cold Case Posse pre­sent­ed them­selves as an offi­cial inves­ti­ga­tion and no one was will­ing to talk to them. They received no coop­er­a­tion from Hawai­ian author­i­ties. (Added 7/19/2012) Detec­tive Bri­an Mack­iewicz was there, a ful­ly com­pen­sat­ed, sworn law enforce­ment offi­cer, who was cre­den­tialed, and pre­sent­ed those cre­den­tials.
    • UNKNOWN. While states some­times do assist the author­i­ties of oth­er states in inves­ti­gat­ing crimes or oth­er­wise enforc­ing laws, out of a legal sen­ti­ment called “comi­ty,” (basi­cal­ly just being friend­ly and coop­er­a­tive in the hopes that if they need a help­ing hand in the future they may well get it), they are under no legal oblig­a­tion to do so. The Cold Case Posse was not con­duct­ing an offi­cial inves­ti­ga­tion of an active case in their juris­dic­tion. They have no author­i­ty what­so­ev­er out­side of Ari­zona. They had the same author­i­ty to com­pel wit­ness­es in Hawaii that every oth­er tourist has: none. Hawai­ian offi­cials were required by law to insist that the CCP prop­er­ly fol­lowed Hawai­ian law. Whether this came across as stonewalling or fol­low­ing estab­lished pro­ce­dures is a mat­ter of per­spec­tive.
    • We have spec­u­lat­ed that the pres­ence of the deputy was intend­ed to give the impres­sion of an offi­cial inves­ti­ga­tion. They may have been attempt­ing to imper­son­ate law enforce­ment with author­i­ty in a state where they have none, in order to con­vince peo­ple to talk with the CCP.  (Added 7/19/2012) Indeed, Deputy 

      Mack­iewicz pre­sent­ed his cre­den­tials to Kapi­olani offi­cials. See above quote from the tran­script of the Press Con­fer­ence.

  • Claim: “it’s unbe­liev­able how lit­tle infor­ma­tion we were able to find”
    • Con­fir­ma­tion bias Under Con­struc­tion
  • Claim: There was no legal author­i­ty for any­one to make a PDF of the birth cer­tifi­cate. 
    • FALSE. Even Zul­lo said that Nagamine told him that the recip­i­ent could do what­ev­er they want­ed to with the cer­ti­fied copy. Hawaii has no legal pro­hi­bi­tion against mak­ing unof­fi­cial copies of a birth cer­tifi­cate.  Under Con­struc­tion
  • Claim: (Updat­ed 7/19/2012) Kapi­olani Hos­pi­tal, where Barack Oba­ma was born had a “log book that exist­ed with­in the doors to the deliv­ery area of of Kapi­olani Med­ical Cen­ter where Barack Oba­ma was report­ed­ly born. In this book all births for a two year peri­od were logged, and then the book was was retired to the hos­pi­tal’s archives. Upon request­ing access to the hos­pi­tal’s archived log books, the posse was told that the hos­pi­tal was not in the busi­ness of inves­ti­gat­ing birth cer­tifi­cates, but in the busi­ness of sav­ing lives. Soon after this com­ment, the posse was asked to leave the facil­i­ty.” 
    • MISLEADING: Access to any such reg­is­ters would not be open to pub­lic inspec­tion. They con­sti­tute “pro­tect­ed health infor­ma­tion” under the The Health Insur­ance Porta­bil­i­ty and Account­abil­i­ty Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
      • Pro­tect­ed Health Infor­ma­tion. The Pri­va­cy Rule pro­tects all “indi­vid­u­al­ly iden­ti­fi­able health infor­ma­tion” held or trans­mit­ted by a cov­ered enti­ty or its busi­ness asso­ciate, in any form or media, whether elec­tron­ic, paper, or oral. The Pri­va­cy Rule calls this infor­ma­tion “pro­tect­ed health infor­ma­tion (PHI).”

        Indi­vid­u­al­ly iden­ti­fi­able health infor­ma­tion” is infor­ma­tion, includ­ing demo­graph­ic data, that relates to:

        • the individual’s past, present or future phys­i­cal or men­tal health or con­di­tion,
        • the pro­vi­sion of health care to the indi­vid­ual, or
        • the past, present, or future pay­ment for the pro­vi­sion of health care to the indi­vid­ual,

        and that iden­ti­fies the indi­vid­ual or for which there is a rea­son­able basis to believe it can be used to iden­ti­fy the indi­vid­ual. Indi­vid­u­al­ly iden­ti­fi­able health infor­ma­tion includes many com­mon iden­ti­fiers (e.g., name, address, birth date, Social Secu­ri­ty Num­ber).

      • No Pilikia said: “I worked at Kapi­olani as a stu­dent in ’76 & ’77, as an L&D [Labor and Deliv­ery] staff nurse 1979–1983, an NICU nurse ’83 — ’90, & a part-time/ call-in nurse ’94–96 in both of those depart­ments. The log­book was in L&D at the ward clerk’s desk. After a patient deliv­ered & we trans­ferred her to her new room on the post-par­tum floor, we went back to L&D & filled out the log­book. The 1961 log­book is prob­a­bly locked in the office of KMCW­C’s HIPAA com­pli­ance offi­cer.
  • Claim: (Added 7/19/2012) The hos­pi­tal library’s archives are open to the pub­lic, and with per­mis­sion from the hos­pi­tal any­body can go in there. Under Con­struc­tion.


  • Claim: Two Mari­co­pa Coun­ty Board of Super­vi­sors mem­bers refused to accept the dona­tions for reim­burs­ing expen­di­tures for the deputy.
    • TRUE. The two board mem­bers felt that it was inap­pro­pri­ate for the Sheriff’s office to inves­ti­gate based on pri­vate dona­tions. Board mem­ber Don Sta­p­ley said the board­’s accep­tance of pri­vate funds would cov­er up what he believes was mis­spending of tax­pay­er funds for the Oba­ma inves­ti­ga­tion.
      • Cit­i­zens for a Bet­ter Ari­zona’s Randy Par­raz said at the board meet­ing: “Yes we are against dona­tions. We don’t want to pri­va­tize the sher­if­f’s office. We all pay our pub­lic dol­lars to hold them account­able. So, what, some­one else goes in, say they give him $10,000, they can go inves­ti­gate their own per­son­al agen­da? This is about hold­ing pub­lic offi­cials account­able with our tax­pay­er dol­lars. 
      • No, he can no longer advance on our dime — it’s our mon­ey — and pay for some­one to go to Hawaii, who he says did lit­er­al­ly noth­ing, and come back and say, ‘Reim­burse me on the back­side. Some­one bail me out and give me my mon­ey so I can pay for this.”  Video
      • Law enforce­ment shouldn’t go to whomev­er will pay the most for it. 
      • Some observers have ques­tioned why the MCSO deputy accom­pa­nied Cold Case Posse mem­ber Mike Zul­lo and WND Reporter Jerome Cor­si to Hawaii at all. If it was for secu­ri­ty (as Arpaio has said), the CCP would have saved a sig­nif­i­cant amount of mon­ey (and avoid­ed the appear­ance of tax­pay­ers fund­ing the “inves­ti­ga­tion”) by hir­ing secu­ri­ty in Hawaii.  
  • Claim: The book was just a way to get the press con­fer­ence to a larg­er audi­ence in more detail. Mike Zul­lo hasn’t made any mon­ey from pub­lish­ing his book about the inves­ti­ga­tion.  
    • FALSE. Accord­ing to Zul­lo, he has received at least 2 checks total­ing $1,400 to $1,500 that he imme­di­ate­ly donat­ed to his church.  
      • (Added 7/22/2012) At the press con­fer­ence on July 17 when asked about income from the “book” Mike Zul­lo said he made “absolute­ly noth­ing”, then said “I didn’t make any­thing on that book when I left for Hawaii” … “Com­ing back from Hawaii, for a month in a pile of envelopes was a check for 700 dol­lars, and sub­se­quent­ly anoth­er one came two weeks lat­er for 630 bucks. I didn’t even know it was there.” Then he went on to say “The pub­lish­er [Paper­less Press, LLC] called me and goes ‘Hey, did you cash the checks?’ I wasn’t expect­ing a check. Got about four­teen, fif­teen hun­dred bucks total that went direct­ly to my church.”

        If Mr. Zul­lo received mon­ey direct­ly from the pub­lish­er that is treat­ed as income regard­less of whether he sub­se­quent­ly gave the mon­ey to a char­i­ty. Since the mon­ey was made by sell­ing a work prod­uct of the tax exempt orga­ni­za­tion, the MCCP, it was not his to keep nor give to his church with­out run­ning afoul of the rules for char­i­ta­ble orga­ni­za­tions.

    • An exten­sive com­plaint has been filed with the IRS alleg­ing that “Directors/officers/persons are using income/assets for per­son­al gain” and that the “Orga­ni­za­tion is involved in a polit­i­cal cam­paign” by inves­ti­gat­ing at the behest of the Sur­prise (AZ) Tea Par­ty. Mike Zul­lo is specif­i­cal­ly named in the com­plaint. 
    • (Added 7/24/2012) The sale of the MCCP report for prof­it on Ama­zon also con­tin­ues to be in vio­la­tion of the Mari­co­pa Coun­ty Sher­if­f’s Office own Code of Con­duct Pol­i­cy which states “Employ­ees (and vol­un­teers) are pro­hib­it­ed from using their offi­cial posi­tion … for … per­son­al or finan­cial gain”. As was men­tioned above just giv­ing the mon­ey to char­i­ty after it is received does not “make it all bet­ter”; it is still income. CBS Chan­nel Five in Phoenix cov­ered this vio­la­tion in an inves­tiga­tive report titled Cold Case Posse vio­lat­ed MCSO Code of Con­duct.
  • Claim: Zul­lo has said that the hotel they stayed at was far from being a nice hotel, that it was across the street from a check-cash­ing store and a liquor store. 
    • MISLEADING. This is an exam­ple of Zullo’s “cre­ative truthi­ness.” Under Con­struc­tion

 Addi­tion­al Resources

The Arpaio/Zullo Press Con­fer­ence, July 17, 2012

Press Con­fer­ence July 17, 2012: Com­plete Video 

Unof­fi­cial Tran­script of the July 17 Press Con­fer­ence (Added 7/22/2012)

Demon­stra­tion videos shown at press con­fer­ence: 

Unof­fi­cial Tran­script of the Demon­stra­tion Videos from the July 17 Press Con­fer­ence (Added 7/22/2012)

Recap of the PDF Issues: Video 1  

Decod­ing the Pen­cil Marks: Video 2  

Let­ter proves Hawaii lax with Birth Cer­tifi­cates: Video 3 

Non-coop­er­a­tion of Hawaii Gov­ern­ment Employ­ees: Video 4 

Birth Cer­tifi­cate Num­bers: Video 5

Press Release

Press Release: Sup­ple­men­tal 

Press State­ment from the State of Hawaii, Attor­ney Gen­er­al’s Office on the Arpaio Press Con­fer­ence and Claims (Added 7/22/2012)

Doc­tor Con­spir­a­cy’s Debunk­ing of the Press Con­fer­ence (Added 7/22/2012)

Media reacts to Arpaio press conference

Code “9”: the Cold Case Posse’s big lie (updated)

Cold Case Posse: more contradictions in their story

Birthers doubt Doc FOIA response (updated)

Indicting Sheriff Joe and the Cold Case Posse

Cold Case Posse video fraud: it gets worse

Cold Case Posse: backed into a corner (Updated 2)

Cold Case Posse: The Sword of Damocles



(Added 7/22/2012) Mike Zulo says he was a reserve offi­cer, then spent 5 years as a detec­tive in the Demarest, NJ  Police Depart­ment. He then spent 7 years as licensed inves­ti­ga­tor, 2 with own busi­ness. 

Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow