Monthly Archives: March 2013

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 3rd 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.

 
 

 
 

 

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

Closeup

345678101112131415171819

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