Part Three: The Law Enforcement Provision

Part Three: The Law Enforcement Provision

 

Part 1 documented deliberate red flags placed into Virginia Sunahara’s fabricated death certificate by a HDOH worker, which is presumably that worker’s protest at being ordered to illegally falsify records. Similar red flags are found in the BC’s of Ah Nee and Obama (more on Obama’s later).

 

Part 2 documented that 4 of the 6 Aug 1961 BC#’s on legal documents issued by the HDOH could not have been the BC’s originally assigned in 1961. The anomalous BC#’s revealed so far belong to Virginia Sunahara, Johanna Ah Nee, Barack Obama, and Stig Waidelich. Obama’s BC# had to belong to the 3^rd Honolulu birth after Gretchen Nordyke, which was almost certainly Stig Waidelich.

 

The HDOH is authorized to create new BC’s in certain situations. They routinely create BC’s to reflect new legal realities such as adoption, sex determination/change, and legitimation, presumably by cutting and pasting from other BC’s at their office to make the new BC appear authentic. The BC’s created in this way are legally valid, and certified copies will have the same certification as any other record, claiming to be a copy or abstract from the “original record on file”. The new BC has the same BC# as the original and simply replaces the old one in the file/computer record, which is then sealed. It may only be opened by a court order.

 

There is only one circumstance where the law allows the assignment of a BC# other than the original one : when a new birth certificate is created because law enforcement says it is necessary to protect the registrant. HRS 338-17.7 is posted at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0007.htm and can be seen as Exhibit A, but the relevant portion says:

 

 

     §338-17.7  Establishment of new certificates of birth, when.  (a)  The department of health shall establish, in the following circumstances, a new certificate of birth for a person born in this State who already has a birth certificate filed with the department and who is referred to below as the “birth registrant”: <snip>

(5)  Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant’s original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.

The statute says nothing about the legal validity of this legally-fabricated birth certificate but does say that the original birth certificate remains in place. This basically provides for a false identity to be created in order to allow someone to hide their real identity, which is still available to be found by qualified requestors who know the original information.

 

Nowhere else is the HDOH authorized to give a person a new BC#.

 

The only lawful reason for the HDOH to give Virginia Sunahara a different BC# than she was assigned in 1961 is if law enforcement certifies that it would provide for her safety. There’s one problem though: she is already dead. Has been since the day after she was born. No matter how you slice it, the HDOH illegally altered Virginia Sunahara’s BC#. Why would they alter the BC# of a deceased infant?

 

I’m sure it is very rare for law enforcement to request new BC’s in order to protect someone. Yet two-thirds (4/6) of all the Aug 1961 BC#’s we’ve seen have altered BC#’s. Statistically near-impossible. Only one of those BC#’s belongs to a public figure who could be claimed as needing protection: Barack Obama.

 

It is almost certain that the HDOH created a new BC for Barack Obama at the request of law enforcement and illegally gave that new BC the BC# that belonged to Stig Waidelich – who then needed to take somebody else’s, etc until somebody finally was given the number that Obama should’ve gotten if this provision was lawfully applied: the one after the last 1961 BC# that was assigned.

 

Whatever is on a BC created through the law enforcement provision is simply what law enforcement says has to be on it. If law enforcement says it has to have an Aug 8, 1961 signature of Dr David Sinclair or Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, then that is what it will have, C&P-ed from other documents if necessary. If law enforcement says it has to have an Aug 8, 1961 filing date then that is what it will have. Etc. What is certain is that something on that new BC is different than what was on the “unsafe” BC, or else there would be no need to create a new one.

 

What else is certain is that somebody in law enforcement had to know what was problematic about the real BC in order to certify that Obama needed a new one. So much for the information on a BC not being discloseable to law enforcement, as claimed by HI deputy AG Jill Nagamine to 2 credentialed law enforcement officers with Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse. Apparently it is discloseable only to the “right” law enforcement people. What law enforcement entity knows the truth about Obama’s record?

 

And the creation of a new BC at the request of law enforcement would certainly have required the approval of both the HI Attorney General’s office (the legal advisors to the HDOH who had to be consulted on something so trivial as a routine verification request) and the HDOH director – who would both thus also know what was problematic with the original. And that explains a lot of strange events that had the whole world scratching their heads shortly before Donald Trump broke the media’s silence barrier on Obama’s documentation problems.

 

In the next installment we will look at those strange events, which suddenly make sense in view of the HDOH’s documented alteration of BC#’s and the only possible legal justification for it.

 

Summary: The alteration of 4 out of the 6 disclosed August 1961 BC#’s (including one deceased infant) makes it almost certain that the HDOH shifted BC#’s in order to give Obama a new BC# on a BC created at the request of law enforcement and claiming whatever law enforcement said it should say. There is a BC in Hawaii that has the BC# 10641 and whatever law enforcement ordered it to say, for Obama’s safety. There is also the record that Obama originally had, which has a different BC# and reveals something so drastically different that law enforcement claimed that real record would put Obama’s life at risk.

 

Either that, or the HDOH falsified at least 4 August 1961 BC#’s without even trying to legally justify it.

 

 

 

Exhibit A: HRS 338-17.7 (emphasis mine)

 

     §338-17.7  Establishment of new certificates of birth, when.  (a)  The department of health shall establish, in the following circumstances, a new certificate of birth for a person born in this State who already has a birth certificate filed with the department and who is referred to below as the “birth registrant”:

     (1)  Upon receipt of an affidavit of paternity, a court order establishing paternity, or a certificate of marriage establishing the marriage of the natural parents to each other, together with a request from the birth registrant, or the birth registrant’s parent or other person having legal custody of the birth registrant, that a new birth certificate be prepared because previously recorded information has been altered pursuant to law;

     (2)  Upon receipt of a certified copy of a final order, judgment, or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction that determined the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship between a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file and the birth registrant;

     (3)  Upon receipt of a certified copy of a final adoption decree, or of an abstract of the decree, pursuant to sections 338-20 and 578-14;

     (4)  Upon receipt of an affidavit of a physician that the physician has examined the birth registrant and has determined the following:

         (A)  The birth registrant’s sex designation was entered incorrectly on the birth registrant’s birth certificate; or

         (B)  The birth registrant has had a sex change operation and the sex designation on the birth registrant’s birth certificate is no longer correct; provided that the director of health may further investigate and require additional information that the director deems necessary; or

     (5)  Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant’s original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.

     (b)  When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth.  Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed.  Such sealed document shall be opened only by an order of a court of record. [L 1973, c 39, §1; am L 1975, c 66, §2(3); am L 1979, c 130, §1 and c 203, §1; am L 1982, c 4, §1; am L 1983, c 65, §1; am L 1984, c 167, §1; am L 1993, c 131, §2]

 
 

Rules of Court

 
 

  Adoption, new birth certificate, see HFCR rule 112.

 
 

 
 

Previous

Vol06_Ch0321-0344

Next

 

Clue #2: Obama Apparently Given Stig Waidelich’s BC#

Clue Number Two

Clue #2: Four of the August 1961 BC#’s that the HDOH has disclosed were changed BY THE HDOH from their original 1961 owners – the 3 records with the red flags, and the short-form BC of Stig Waidelich.

SUMMARY: Stig Waidelich’s computer-generated COLB has a BC# that requires a 12,400% variance from the average birth rate within a 2.5-hour period. It is obviously falsified. So not only do we have paper records (1960-64 birth index, the Ah Nee and Obama BC’s, and the Sunahara death certificate) being falsified by the HDOH, but we have the BC# in the computer system itself being falsified. And all these falsified certificates claimed BC#’s that could not have been on those BC’s in 1961. Stig Waidelich is almost certainly the original owner of the BC# that the HDOH has verified as currently belonging to Obama.

In the next installment we will look at the only circumstance in which a new BC# can lawfully be assigned to a person. That will be the key that opens the door on what the HDOH has done, when, and why. Everything we’ve seen makes sense when we realize how the HDOH could legally try to justify giving Obama the BC# that belonged to Stig Waidelich.

Hawaii BC Numbering System Documented

Hawaii BC Numbering System

I’ve been able to see the documents from the CDC which describe how the Hawaii BC’s were numbered. Janice Okubo was wrong about how BC’s were numbered. “Date Accepted by State Registrar” on the BC’s only refers to when the documents were received in the office. The numbering of the BC’s, which happened around the 5th or 6th of the following month, constituted the OFFICIAL acceptance of the record as a legal document (as alluded to in the Administrative Rules), when the document would be microfilmed and any amendments would have to be made through an official procedure.

The information in this PDF will be critical to the next clue.

Summary: Each month the local registrars kept the BC’s for births from each of the CDC’s geographic areas for Hawaii in their own region/batch and put into chronological order according to the time of birth. On the 4th of the month the outlying islands mailed all the BC’s in their office to the state registrar. When those BC’s were received at the state registrar’s office, all the state’s BC’s for that month were placed in this order, numbered consecutively, and microfilmed for the CDC in BC# order with a cover sheet (“target”) between the different regions:

1. Hilo, in chronological order
2. The remainder of Hawaii County, in chronological order
3. Honolulu, in chronological order
4. The remainder of Honolulu County, in chronological order
5. Kalawao County, in chronological order
6. Kauai County, in chronological order
7. Maui, in chronological order

jpegs for FR

HDOH Red Flags (Word Version)

(There was an error in the original version. I mistakenly said Mr and Mrs Norman ROLOOS were in the birth announcement, when it should have been Mr and Mrs Norman ASING. This is the corrected version.)

HDOH Red Flags

HDOH Red Flags

This is the start of a series of posts that will lay out what we know from the evidence thus far. The series will answer or propose answers for some of the questions that have perplexed us for a while. It makes sense once the puzzle pieces start to come together. Virginia Sunahara’s death certificate provides the key evidence to unlocking what has happened.

(There was an error in the original version. I mistakenly said Mr and Mrs Norman ROLOOS were in the birth announcement, when it should have been Mr and Mrs Norman ASING. This is the corrected version.)

HDOH Red Flags

Scan of a Real Seal v Obama Forgery Seal

Scan of a Real Seal

Guthrie Seal v L Seal

The first link compares a scan of a real seal to the White House BC PDF, which is supposedly made directly from a scan.

The 2nd link compares a photo the registrar’s  real Hawaii seal to Savannah Guthrie’s photo of the seal on Obama’s forged long-form.

Letter Faxed to Every Republican Member of Congress

CRITICALLY & LEGALLY URGENT FOR EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS:

                                                                                                                               

Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery. He also confirmed to KS SOS Kris Kobach that the information contained in the White House image is NOT “identical to” that in the official record.

 

Many of you have replied to concerned constituents that the matter is settled by the public statements of Hawaii officials, the HDOH birth index list, the newspaper birth announcements, and Obama’s posted short-form and long-form birth certificates.  Onaka’s disclosure – the only one made by a HI official under oath –negates all that and fits the vast legal and forensic evidence collected so far, some of which is in my affidavit (privately posted at <REDACTED> for NE criminal case #B2-119<REDACTED>. Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Commander, Mike Zullo  (both of whom initially disbelieved the skeptics) have both signed affidavits saying there is legal-quality FORENSIC evidence that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and draft registration are forged. Onaka has now revealed the REASON for the forgery: to hide the non-validity of the birth record. Evidence in my affidavit proves (among other things) that the 1960-64 birth index includes non-valid records.

 

Onaka’s disclosure is proof of results-altering election fraud in every state in this country, since fraudulent filing documents were used to place Obama on every state’s ballot. Absent a non-Hawaii birth record, Obama doesn’t even have a legally-determined birth date, place, or parents so nobody can lawfully say he meets the age or citizenship requirements to be President – and yet every Certification of Nomination falsely swears that he is eligible.  EVERY electoral vote for Obama is thus now LEGALLY KNOWN to be fraudulently-obtained and must not be certified as lawful on Jan 8th. As with the Sandusky case, those with knowledge have legal responsibility to act, and that is now you.

 

Even if the majority in Congress wrongly certifies the electoral vote, that only makes Obama the President-elect. The 20^th Amendment says that if the President-elect fails to qualify by Jan 20^th, the Vice-President-elect must “act as President”. Without any legally-determined birth date, birth place, or birth parents, there is no way that Barack Obama could have qualified by Jan 20, 2009 – or can qualify by Jan 20, 2013, unless his birth facts ARE legally determined. The biggest favor any one of you can do for this whole process (and for Obama himself if he is to become President LAWFULLY) is to file a lawsuit (with standing) challenging Obama’s eligibility so that the records will be presented as evidence to a JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE person or body (not legislative, according to Hawaii statute 338-17, so Congress is powerless on this issue) and birth facts determined. That’s the only way Obama can “qualify” by Jan 20, 2013.

 

Our President has committed perjury 6 times by swearing (in AZ, NC, and WV) that he is eligible, knowing that he has no valid HI birth certificate (and claiming a Kenyan birth in his bio until 2007), and let his spokesmen pass off two forgeries as genuine on his behalf. He knowingly allowed a decorated military surgeon to lose his life’s savings and retirement and spend 6 months in prison for simply wanting to know if his combat orders were lawful, or whether they Constitutionally had to come from Joe Biden instead – who OPPOSED the “surge”.

 

It appears that many felonies have been committed. An impeachment must precede a criminal investigation and trial, so failure to impeach is obstruction of equal protection & the rule of law – without which, none of your life’s work even matters because the laws you make will only be enforced when politically expedient to the powerful. A banana republic. DON’T LET THAT HAPPEN IN THE AMERICA YOU HAND YOUR CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN, OR FRIENDS. Instead, keep your oath and love your families. Truth matters.  Please reply to tell me what you will do to defend truth, the rule of law, and the Constitution you swore to defend.

 

Sincerely,

                  

Nellie <CONTACT INFO REDACTED>

 

HDOH Did Not Verify What Kansas Requested

As can be seen at https://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/kansas-verification.pdf , the Kansas Objection Board asked the Hawaii Department of Health to verify, among other things, that (emphasis added):

“3. The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf and reviewed by you on the date of your verification, a copy of which is attached to this request, is identical to the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health.”

In response the HDOH verified that:

“3. The information contained in the “Certificate of Live Birth” published at http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate and reviewed by me on the date of this verification, a copy of which is attached with your request, matches the information contained in the original Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama, II on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health.”

I’ve highlighted the words that are different between the request and the response. There are the pronouns that change to reflect the person speaking (“you” becomes “me”; “your verification” becomes “this verification”; “to this request” becomes “with your request”). But beyond that, the HDOH changed 2 things of substance:

1. The source link for the copied BC is different.
2. The words “is identical to” are replaced with “matches”.

I don’t know why the link was changed, but some thoughts come to mind. Because the content of websites can change, the important thing for Onaka to review was the copy showing what specific image the request referred to. That’s the only way we know WHAT information “matched”. By putting a different link, Onaka seems to indicate that he didn’t base his verification on the copy he was given OR the site he was told the copy was taken from. If what he saw when he looked at the site he cited was the same as what is at the link now, the two links have the same content, but we have no way of knowing whether that was the case when he looked at it. Citing a different link puts in another degree of separation because the page COULD HAVE BEEN different at the time Onaka looked at it. And having the different link shows right away that Onaka is not verifying exactly what he was asked to verify; he changed it a little bit, adding that degree of separation. An easily-visible red flag. And that may well be the reason for it.

More importantly, the HDOH did not verify that the information in the White House image is “identical to” the information contained in the original BC for Obama. They instead verified something they were not asked to verify: that the information that exists in the White House image MATCHES the information contained in the original BC.

Why refuse to verify that the information “is identical to”, if it can be verified that the information “matches”? What’s the difference between “is identical to” and “matches”?

If the information is identical, whatever exists in one exists in the other, and whatever doesn’t exist in one doesn’t exist in the other. The one is a “true and accurate representation” of the other. It has everything the other has and lacks everything the other lacks. Obviously, “matches” means something different, or there would be no reason to change the language. Most probably “matches” means that information actually contained in the copy matches what the original has for that – but if there is no information in a field on the copy, no comparison is made.

So Kansas did NOT receive the verification they requested. By refusing to verify what was requested, the HDOH verified the opposite: that the information contained in the copy of the White House BC is NOT “identical to” the information contained in the original record at the HDOH.

And we learned that when Onaka says information “matches” he does NOT mean the information on both documents is identical. Onaka will verify that the information in the copy “matches” even if the copy lacks some of the information from the original.

So we’ve got a series of walk-downs. AZ asked Onaka to verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file” and Onaka would not verify that. KS asked him to verify that the information contained in the White House record “is identical to” the information in the original record, and Onaka wouldn’t verify that. In both instances, Onaka instead verified something he was not asked to verify – that the information from the White House image “matched” the information from the original, a verification that can be used even if the White House image is missing some of the information that’s in the original record.

Which is critical, considering that Item 23 is the only item (other than mother’s mailing address) that was left blank in the White House image.

And Item 23 is where evidence for a late filing or alteration is to be listed – evidence that OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama already disclosed exists. And this item alone would reveal that the record is non-valid, which Onaka has already confirmed through the AZ verification. When MDEC submitted their verification to a court they were careful to explain that “information” only means birth facts – which specifically excludes FILING information. IOW, item 23 (as well as the dates of filing, signature, etc). MDEC was thus careful to say that item 23 was NOT asked about in their verification request. Which sure seems to indicate that they knew item 23 was the sticking point – and that they knew they had a legal responsibility to have recognized that on the basis of already-disclosed records (AZ’s verification from Onaka).

SOS’s Need to Obey State Perjury and Fraud Laws

Below is a letter I received from the office of AR SOS Mark Martin. I wanted everyone to see this so I can point out the deflection that the SOS’s will probably try to make. The claim in this letter is that the SOS is not authorized to determine the eligibility of candidates, but only whether they submitted the required paperwork to get on the ballot.

And this is where Onaka’s disclosure is so critical, because Obama’s HI birth record being non-valid means that there are no legally-determined birth facts for Obama, and anybody who files any statement, application, Certification, etc that says Obama is qualified to be President is known to be dead wrong. Nobody can know that, since nobody knows his legally-determined birth facts. That means that every SOS in the country knows that the paperwork they receive for Obama is fraudulent. Every SOS in the country should be writing the Obama campaign and telling them that they have not submitted the proper paperwork because fraudulent documents cannot be accepted.

SOS’s don’t have to determine Obama’s eligibility. They don’t have to even know about the BC forgeries, E-verify failure, draft registration forgery, or passport breaches for Obama. All they need to know is that Hawaii says they don’t have a legally-valid birth record for Obama, so nobody can know when, where, or to whom Obama was born. Anybody who makes a LEGAL claim that they know he is qualified is perjuring him/herself and/or committing election fraud. There is not one SOS in the country who has received proper filing papers for Obama, because all the papers are fraudulent and/or perjurious.

The only authorization these SOS’s need, to keep Obama off the ballot, is perjury and fraud laws that require them to reject known-fraudulent filings. And misprision laws that require them to report known perjury and fraud to law enforcement. These are not heroic measures we are asking these SOS’s to do. We are simply asking them not to engage in election fraud or misprision of the felonies of fraud and perjury.

The SOS’s need to know that their role at this point isn’t about Obama’s eligibility. It is about known-fraudulent filing documents. Please look up your SOS at http://www.nass.org/index.php?option=com_contact_display&Itemid=346 and tell them that it is election fraud and misprision of fraud and perjury if they accept known-fraudulent filing documents as if they were lawful.