Monthly Archives: May 2011

The Asing Adoption – Documentation

Click on the PDF link to see the complete article with images.

The Asing Adoption

The text in the PDF:

This is additional documentation for the post at 

 The 1964 divorce decree for Charlotte and Norman Asing gave custody of Norman Jr and Nathan to Charlotte, with Norman paying child support. (See Image 1). In 1970 Charlotte, under her remarried name, filed a complaint to get child support. (See Image 2). In 1973 Norman asked that he no longer be required to give child support since he had given his consent for the children to be adopted. His request was granted, with the stipulation that child support be reinstated if the adoption was not successful. (See Image 3) The divorce file contained no documents later than that document so presumably the adoptions went through.

 Using Charlotte’s remarried surname (blacked out in image 2), an ancestry search showed Norman and Nathan under that surname, with the proper ages for each. Both men have traffic violations under those names, and I have a certified driver’s abstract for Norman using that surname, released after I gave his SSN and a birth date of Aug 4, 1961. (I am not posting either of those items having the current adoptive names of Norman and Nathan because the fact of the adoption can be ascertained from what I can provide without exposing the names.)

 Norman and Nathan were clearly adopted. Their birth names are clearly listed in the 1960-64 birth index even though the birth certificates with those names are legally non-valid AND required by court order to be sealed.

 The HDOH is engaging in serious, serious doo-doo with their 1960-64 birth index.

1960-64 Birth Index Includes Legally Invalid Records

Update: Some of the documentation for these claims is posted at

The 1960-64 birth index includes the birth names of at least 2 adopted children. Those records are required to be sealed, and their inclusion in the public list indicates that the list has been manipulated by the HDOH. At this point we have no way of knowing whether any name listed in the birth index represents a legally-valid record.

Birth Index Includes Legally Invalid Records

HDOH Has Two Different Versions of 1960-64 Birth Index

The HDOH sent me the exact same page from the 1960-64 Birth Index Book, 2 months apart. One had the 1960-64 date range in the heading; the other didn’t. Either the HDOH has 2 different versions of their 1960-64 Birth Index or they are altering the pages at will.

This supports Tsunamigeno’s contention that what he saw in the 1960-64 Birth Index in early March 2010 is different than what is in the 1960-64 Birth Index that is shown to the public in the HDOH office today.

This immediately raises 2 questions:

1. Why is the HDOH messing with the 1960-64 birth index book?

2. If they are changing it to add or delete the heading, what else are they adding, deleting, or changing? Stay tuned for something very critical that we know they changed…

HDOH Has Two Different Versions of Their 1960

HDOH Funny Business Regarding Virginia Sunahara

HDOH Funny Business Regarding Virginia Sunahara

Summary: The HDOH has Virginia Sunahara in their 1960-64 birth index but claims they don’t have a birth record for her.

 They want me to believe nobody has asked for her record rather than telling me they didn’t even search to find out.

 The base record for Obama’s forged long-form appears to be from somebody who matches Virginia Sunahara – a girl born at Wahiawa Hospital who has an R as the third letter of her first name.

 Virginia also meets the criteria for Bill Ayers’ preferred method of identity theft, since she died as an infant.

 Two months ago the HDOH director changed the policy to ensure that the original copy of Sunahara’s birth certificate will never see the light of day without a court battle, which would give her time to forge a BC for Virginia (like the HDOH forged Obama’s long-form). All she would have to change is the BC#. Like she apparently temporarily changed the database’s BC# for Stig Waidelich, whose BC# on the COLB (which he requested for a CNN report) is so far out of sequence with other known BC#’s that it cannot be genuine (more on that in another post hopefully).

 There will be more on the illegal activity of the HDOH.

If the COLB Seal is nickel-sized…

… the long-form seal, proportionally,  is  the size of a quarter. These are not the same seal.

Measuring by Crosshatches

Did Factcheck Help Forge the COLB?

I did an experiment simulating the Factcheck photo, which was taken from the right side of the COLB and has specific fold angles. Any photo taken from the right side should result in the seal leaning to the right. The Factcheck seal does not lean to the right but is almost a perfect circle. I see no way that the seal was on the COLB when it was photographed. Factcheck has some explaining to do.

Factcheck Seal Not Properly Distorted

Obama BC Seal Contradicts Factcheck

I was wrong. There apparently was a seal on the BC Obama allowed reporters to see. Savannah Guthrie took a photo of it and the circular outline of a seal can be seen.

Unfortunately for Obama, the “seal” is different than the one on the Factcheck forgery.  Serious doo-doo going on, folks.

Obama BC Seal Contradicts Factcheck

“White Copy” Not Directly From Certified Copy

This needs to be in a PDF so you can see the images.

When Obama made copies of the birth certificate to distribute to the media, the paper he copied from was thin enough to let print from a page behind it show up on the scan. I and another person tested security paper to see if it is thin enough for a scan to pick up print from a page behind it – mine being my daughter’s death certificate and Danae’s being the actual green security paper that the HDOH uses to print certified copies on. Security paper does not allow this “image bleedthrough”.

What the press was given in their 6-page packet of photocopies was NOT a copy taken directly from the certified birth certificate on security paper. It was a copy taken from a print-out – most likely a printout of the layered, manipulable PDF of the birth certificate.

IOW, not only was the green copy specifically scanned into a manipulable form, but the white copy is from a print-out which also could have been manipulated. Everything Obama has offered is the result of specific steps taken to allow manipulation.

So we’ve got a problem with what is missing, since there is no tangible evidence of a birth certificate with a raised seal. (See )

And we’ve got a problem with what was actually presented, because both the PDF and the white copy were specifically processed to allow manipulation.

Here’s the PDF with the evidence to substantiate my claims:

White Copy Not Made Directly From Certified Copy

Long-Form Forgery for Dummies

Longform Forgery for DummiesThis has to be as a PDF so you can magnify the images.

The only non-manipulable image of Obama’s long-form that would have to show the certifying seal is an alleged photograph of the certified long-form. Unlike scans or black and white photocopies, actual photos always show evidence of a seal, as I document here through photographs of my own daughter’s death certificate.

But the alleged photo of Obama’s certified long-form shows no sign of a seal.

That proves that what he showed reporters was NOT the certified copy he received from the HDOH. It had no seal, and the reporters totally spaced off what any one of us who researches this stuff would have immediately checked, since it is the only part that gives the paper any legal value.

Obama had certified copies from the HDOH and he chose to present to the entire world something else, while CLAIMING it was what the HDOH sent him. Presumably it was a print-out of the manipulated PDF. If no manipulation had been necessary Obama could have simply shown the media the actual certified copy, as he CLAIMED to do. The absence of the seal gives it all away.


Somebody said there is a seal that can be seen if you adjust the contrast and brightness. I set both these images for the highest contrast, set them both at -20 for brightness, and lined them up so the cross-hatches are the same size. Compare for yourself. The link is at the bottom.

I left this in Word because that’s the program I have where I can adjust contrast. I am not technologically sophisticated – and in a world where stuff can be manipulated digitally I think it does some good to look at what is actually in front of our eyeballs. If we have to magnify to this degree to see even a HINT of a tiny squiggle somewhere then you can bet your bottom dollar that no reporter looked at this with their naked eyes and saw a seal. A seal that requires this kind of manipulation defeats the whole purpose of a physical raised seal – which is to have an immediately visible sign that the paper in front of you is the same paper that the HDOH sent from their office.

I am a housewife with four kids and a husband to tend to and no computer expertise. In 5 minutes or less I could take a photo of the whole death certificate and post it on my blog with varying angles, close-ups of the seal, etc to give a convincing proof that the document I have is authentic. But with all the resources and personnel at Obama’s disposal this is the best he can come up with? Come ON, people. There is no excuse for this crap.

With Contrast

For those who get a hassle with a Word document, here’s the file as a PDF: PDF with-contrast

UPDATE 2: For those who say the photo isn’t really a photo but is just a jpg version of the same scan used in the PDF, here is a comparison of the PDF with the jgp of the “photo”.  Comparison of Degrading Quality

Because the quality degrades, it is a good bet that whether this claimed “photo” is a photo or a scan, it is a photo or scan OF THE MANIPULATED PDF. And we’re still left with no PHOTO of an ACTUAL CERTIFIED COPY.

This whole thing is so senseless. The HDOH sent a paper document with a seal. If you want to convince people that you’ve got a paper document with a seal the best way is to let them see, hold, photograph, and videotape it. Refusing to do that and instead making scans of it in a format where the content of it can be manipulated is the worst thing they could do, if they wanted to make their case for authenticity. It’s the perfect thing to do if they want to increase suspicions while thumbing their nose at people for having questions in the first place. 

There is not one media person who saw a real certified birth certificate, and the only things they or we have been given are manipulable images. The media is ridiculing US because they were too stupid to know how to verify the authenticity of a birth certificate. Incredible. Absolutely incredible.