Both Obama`s Australian And Kenyan Birth Certificates Are Valid And Not Forged

The bind that makes them nearly identical: British Common Law (albeit the Seal, Deputy Registrar, and Commonwealth Symbol)

Visit this site for embedded links:

[link to 216.221.102.26]

I have extensive knowledge of computers, including graphics manipulation. I have reviewed both certificates from Australia and Kenya, and believe both are valid and not forged certificates. Neither shows signs of being forged (or even remotely so).

So, if they are both valid, then there must be something that binds them to nearly identical record formats, right? I believe that bind is English Common Law.

Both Kenya and Australia are British Commonwealth of Nations. What is the Commonwealth of Nations? From Wikipedia:
"The Commonwealth was established on 11 December 1931. It is not a political union, but an intergovernmental organisation"

Most of these "member states" were formerly parts of the British Empire (see Wikipedia).

These member nations (which can be independent) mostly use English Common Law (see Wikipedia) under the Culture section:
"Mostly due to their history of British rule, many Commonwealth nations possess certain identifiable traditions and customs that are elements of a shared Commonwealth culture. Examples include common sports such as cricket and rugby, driving on the left, the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, common law"

Kenya was part of the British Empire in 1961, and as such, used English Common Law for any type of records and registration.

Australia joined the British Commonwealth of Nations in December, 1931 (see Wikipedia nation members' list) and also uses English Common Law.

So, i've established that both countries use English Common Law. One country, Kenya, when it was part of the British empire in 1961, and the other country, Australia, after it joined the Commonwealth of Nations (and was formly part of the British empire).

Because both countries use English Common Law (or did as members of the Commonwealth and British Empire), they were subject to the provisions of the English Common Law of Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. The Act was created before both the births of Obama and the Australian Bomford.

The birth forms come from the British Registrar General for any nations using English Common Law and this Birth Registration Act (see section 25 of this Act).
"Registers of live–births, still–births and deaths shall be in such form as may be respectively prescribed, and the Registrar General shall provide any such registers, and any of the forms hereafter mentioned for making certified copies of entries in registers, which may be required for the purposes of this Act"

Each Commonwealth naton has a District Registrar's office that has a "Principal Registrar" as defined by the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. The General Registrar Office is the "parent" office for all "district" offices and resides in Britain (see the powers granted by this act to the Registrar General). There are also "Superintendent Registrars" that are above "Principal Registrars".

So, i've established that all the same criteria must be meant on these forms and the information is collected on forms provided to the Commonwealth Nations by the Registrar General, hence the similar formats of the Australia and Kenyan certificates.

The only difference should be the Deputy Registrar's signature, Registrar Seal, the Commonwealth symbol (appearing at the top), and the information on the family and newborn child. All these things are different (as should be) between the two certificates.

The signature of Registrar (not Deputy Registrar) may be a typo between the certificates. It appears the same Registrar General was working from at least 1959 thru 1961 servicing Common Wealth Nations on behalf of the General Registrar's office in Britain. One of the certificates is likely correct, whoever typed in the wrong initial should have been fired! In any case, it was typed out - and someone typed it in, and humans do make mistakes.

*The "7s 6d" at the top-left hand corners of each certificate represents the cost (in British currency -7 shillings and 6 (old) pence) of the requested copy of the certificate.

*The number "495" on each certificate appearing after the cost is the form number. There is more than one version of the form, depending on the type of birth as explained by the Registrar's office. Each form type is assigned a unique number. It identifies the type of Certificate. In this case, both parents were married at the time of the child's birth. The Registrar's office at the time (and now) has a different form for those unmarried. It's why you see "The year of present marriage" on both certificates. Because these forms were typed out, a separate form was necessary to denote non-married parents. It's why this form was chosen.

It also explains why Kitau of Kenya has the same format as the other certificates:
Kitau says: “I happen to be Kenyan. I was born 1 month before Obama at Mombasa medical center. I am a teacher here at the MM Shaw Primary School in Kenya. I compared my birth certificate to the one that has been put on by Taitz and mine is exactly the same. I even have the same registrar and format. The type is identical.