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.

 
 

 
 

 

Advertisements

14 Comments

  1. Posted March 28, 2013 at 8:05 am | Permalink | Reply

    So. HDOH routinely alters BC’s at the request of the “Right” Law Enforcement figure. O.K. Who cares. The BC I saw, and at least 1 other one in prior months still stated that Barack Obama’s FATHER was Kenyan, or Subject of East Africa, etc. And so, therefore, if the HDOH says they have the right one, altered or not, then, Obama shall never be eligible to be president of The united States because he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen, wherein, His mother AND Father must be citizens of this country at the time of his birth, and the HDOH has him as citizen of some other country.

    • Posted March 28, 2013 at 1:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The trouble is that we have no idea who either his legal or biological father is. When AZ SOS Ken Bennett requested the father’s name (among other things) to be verified, Onaka wouldn’t say anything about the father’s name. The only lawful reason for him to say nothing is if he can’t verify what he was asked to verify. Obama’s DOB, gender, city and island of birth, and mother’s name could also not be verified, so we have no idea what the true facts are for any of those things. They are legally non-verifiable at this point. To legally know whether Obama is eligible we have to have legally-determined birth facts, but without a valid BC or a judicial or administrative procedure to determine the probative value of a non-valid BC, we have no legal birth facts to start from. We can’t even GET to base one in determining eligibility.

      Which means that anybody who certified him as eligible perjured him/herself and committed election fraud – including Obama himself. Note that Brian Schatz, chairman of the Hawaii Democratic Party – who attended Punahou like Obama and worked in Kenya during the year that Michelle and Obama traveled there as an engaged couple – would not sign the HDP’s standard certification of nomination certifying that Obama was eligible.

  2. Posted April 1, 2013 at 8:53 am | Permalink | Reply

    There is no reason on earth to assume that the counterfeiting of Obama’s BC had anything to do with a legal process involving Law Enforcement. It was done the same way that the Nixon White House attempted to cover-up the Watergate break-in. Which was totally outside of the law. To speculate that there might have been a legitimate reason is to veer-off of the path of the truth because the truth at the heart of Obama’s fraud is that the ignorant American population believes that presidential eligibility results from birth within the United States, and Obama, not being born in the United States, had to fake a birth certificate that states that he was. It is that simple, probably, assuming his deep dark secret wasn’t one of paternity.

    • Posted April 1, 2013 at 3:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

      There are at least 4 reasons on earth. At least 4 of the BC#’s disclosed by the HDOH could not have belonged to their current owners in 1961. And 2 of those are on documents that the HDOH itself forged – and put glaring red flags in (the Ah Nee BC has forged Onaka signature and BC# with overlapping digits, and the Sunahara DC has mismatched, misaligned fonts, federal birth code used on a death certificate, and Territory of Hawaii abbreviation used on a State of HI record).

      So at the very least it is known that the HDOH is breaking laws to cover for Obama (and I could document a ton of other examples as well, but these are easily shown and undeniable). Their only potential legal justification for doing any of that is by claiming that law enforcement required them to do it.

      It all could have been done outside the law, but at the very least the HDOH had to be criminally involved just as Obama and/or his people were criminally involved. And all law enforcement that I have contacted (including FBI, my own sheriff, my county attorney, the police department of the state in which Bob Bauer committed subornation of perjury and election fraud, and my state AG) have refused to investigate crimes that I’ve already proven for them. The only law enforcement entity which has investigated is the Cold Case Posse and they have concluded that birth certificate fraud and forgery, selective service fraud and forgery, and social security number fraud have taken place. With the help of those government agencies.

      And this is why I got involved in this issue publicly. This is NOT just rogue Obama people tricking the public. We’re talking about GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AT LOCAL, STATE, And FEDERAL LEVELS not only covering up Obama’s crimes but COMMITTING CRIMES THEMSELVES to aid and abet him in deceiving the American public.

      And we’ve got one of the R Presidential primary candidates (overheard by Larry Sellin) saying that nobody will touch the eligibility issue because they know it goes WAY deeper than anybody wants to delve. IOW, we’ve got Congress refusing to do anything about it because they know it is treachery and they are afraid to find out how deep the treachery goes. We already know it stretches through all levels of US government; to get any deeper it has to go into foreign elements…

      Like, maybe, the Saudi prince who funded Obama’s Harvard degree – which he only used for the 2 planks of the Cloward-Piven Plan to destroy America from within.

      Or like, maybe, the world Islamists that Ghadaffi publicly said had contributed to Obama’s campaign – and which Obama felt the need to beg for patience from just a year after taking office, when he privately told the Egyptian ambassador that the Muslim world needed to be patient with him while he got Obamacare passed and then he would focus on the Muslim agenda, which he supports because he was and still is a Muslim.

  3. Posted April 1, 2013 at 8:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

    This comment is from this youtube video here Sheriff Joe Arpaio; Obama’s Fraudulent Identity Documents Violation of Law

    Karen Page 20 hours ago

    The laws of the State of Hawaii explicitly forbid the Hawaiian Dept. of Health from issuing .pdf images of vital records. Furthermore, federal law prohibits the reproduction of vital records in digital (.pdf) image format. The very presence of a .pdf image of Obama’s birth certificate, by default, means that a crime has been committed because the Hawaiian Dept. of Health DID NOT authorize or issue the .pdf version. A forger created it. Only brainless Obots don’t understand this.

    Is this true?

    • Posted April 1, 2013 at 10:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I don’t know of any place that the HI statues forbid the HDOH from issuing pdf images of vital records. CERTIFIED COPIES of vital records have to be on paper, though, because the certification itself involves prescribed paper with prescribed authenticating marks including a raised (3D) seal.

      If federal law prohibits the reproduction of vital records in digital image formats, then nearly all of the states are in violation of that, because they have the scans of vital records stored on WORM (write once, read many) discs so that paper copies of the originals can be made and certified. In 1976 Hawaii’s HDOH Administrative Rules were altered to include the allowance of electronic means for issuing ABBREVIATED certificates (the computerized printouts). I can’t remember what year DAGS came up with their requirements for digital records storage.

      The Administrative Rules say that standard (long-form) copies must be made by typewriter, microfilm reproduction, or photocopy reproduction. Abbreviated (short-form) copies are allowed to be computer printouts. I’m not sure if a scan would count as photocopy, or as a computer printout. The WORM format is supposed to make the copying process secure, unable to be tampered with, so that it is the electronic version of a microfilm.

      If federal law prohibits individuals from making PDF’s of their vital records then I am in violation of the law, because I’ve posted posts here that contain scans from my family’s vital records and to post it I had to have it in PDF format.

  4. NaturalBoredCitizen
    Posted April 3, 2013 at 1:32 am | Permalink | Reply

    I don’t think you understand what Karen was saying about the pdf. on the W.H. web page implies: it can be broken into layers yet is an exact duplicate when looked at in whole as the paper copy…. so therefore it had to come from the source that created it…. that is: how could it have otherwise been available to Obama? How does the document get broken into the creation layers after the fact? How does the W.H. remove the security background for the white/black press handout if they don’t have the original layered construction document? They acquired both the hard copy and the creation pdf. from the same source/sources at the same time. Now that has got to be a no no even if the doc was made for law enforcement purposes. Which the layered pdf. means it couldn’t have been. Also remember the W.H. pdf. file has the embossed seal exactly where it appears on the Guthrie photo, however its been obscured in some attempt to conceal it. Also the rubber date stamp and the Onaka certification stamp are with the embossed stamp a perfect fingerprint match for the Guthrie photo and the W.H. pdf. So how can the pdf. not have the embossed stamp if it’s a copy as claimed? Also there were 2 paper copies retrieved as claimed by the W.H. presser so if the one in the pdf. copy isn’t the Guthrie photo’ed one… and the second copy was used to make the ‘copy’ for the W.H. pdf. how can the perfect finger print of THREE hand applied stamps done individually be on the 2 hand stamped separately created B.C.’s? No one could stamp 2 sheets of security paper by hand with 2 different rubber stamps and an embosser and then be able to lay them over each other and have perfect fingerprint matches. Soooo…. the Gutherie pic is key to understanding the fraud. if she photo’ed copy A and the pdf. is copy B yet they are perfectly matched as fingerprints in every detail there’s lot of explaining to do. Let alone the concealing of the embossed seal and the white border not edge to edge full size and the after the fact layers from a copy process and the handout with the security background removed and the fact that if it’s a copy from a security paper why didn’t the security paper show the hidden security measure to expose it was a copy? No this is no law enforcement effort done for any legal purposes. Just remember the Guthrie photo and the three seals and the possibility that the same one she photo’ed might not be the same copy they claimed to have made the pdf. from. Enlarge the Guthrie photo to the size of the pdf. and lay them over each other they match perfectly, but yet the copy/pdf. has the embossed stamp obscured/concealed but perfectly there, when was this done? Why? Karen was correct though why and where did they get a construction layered copy from the HDOH if that’s the legal way HDOH created the law enforcement ordered new B.C.? Please email me and I’ll send you a phone contact if you wish to discuss the evidence and insight I provided Corsi and Farah and Vogt and the cold case with a long long time ago.

    • Posted April 3, 2013 at 2:43 am | Permalink | Reply

      Right. For the reasons you mentioned and others, the PDF that was posted on the White House website was not what was sent from the HDOH, nor was it a simple photocopy or scan of either paper document that the HDOH sent. I believe the document that the HDOH sent was used as a base, but they had to manipulate it to get rid of some things they didn’t want in there. The security background doesn’t have the skew in the lines that it would have if that layer was taken from the HDOH document, so there was something printed on what the HDOH sent, that they had to take out. Otherwise they could have kept the background from the HDOH. For them to C&P the certifying statement and registrar’s signature, there must have been something in that vicinity that had to be taken out. I would presume that is where the ALTERED and LATE stamps would go, since it’s the only open space on the record…

      • NaturalBoredCitizen
        Posted April 3, 2013 at 3:44 am | Permalink

        The question is: If you were able to get 2 original paper copies, then why, how, and where the hell did you get the photo shopped copy (pdf.) that clearly perfectly matches yet is somehow different (altered embossed seal) as shown in the Guthrie photo of one of the ‘TRUE’ original hard copies that appears to be the altered pdf.? Where did you get and need, why did you get and need, how did you get and need.. the pdf. copy that could have only been from HDOH when they used it to make what appears to be a forged document for what legal purpose? Why did you need and get both certified copies and a pdf. copy whose only purpose could be for document editing? And why is it edited different than its matching Guthrie authentic picture?

  5. NaturalBoredCitizen
    Posted April 3, 2013 at 3:52 am | Permalink | Reply

    How do explain that the copy/pdf. of the Guthrie photo has been edited to remove/obscure the embossed state seal? Why edit the same document that had been seen felt and photo’ed by Guthrie? If the copy was made before Guthrie saw it where was the very visible stamp in the photo and that she felt? If the copy was made after the picture why was it ‘edited’ to obscure it? etc. etc. etc.

  6. NaturalBoredCitizen
    Posted April 3, 2013 at 4:28 am | Permalink | Reply

    How does the White House produce a white handout minus security and the embossed stamp of the document that can only be the one that Guthrie photo’ed? Yes it’s also true that the Guthrie photo perfectly matches as like a fingerprint the White House white background handout. The hand place rubber stamps are perfectly and identically located. Doesn’t that imply editing after the fact? After she photo’ed it? After you returned from Hawaii? It is undeniable that the white copy was edited. It is undeniable that the pdf. was edited. It is undeniable that all three ( guthrie photo, pdf., white handout) are the same document… or the second retrieved hard copy is impossibly identical to the first. A and B handmade and stamped documents are clones… or there was editing done and an editing original exists and appears to be able to be edited before and after the original certified hard copies were made.

  7. NaturalBoredCitizen
    Posted April 3, 2013 at 4:56 am | Permalink | Reply

    The pdf.is the same exactly as the Guthrie photo and the handout but different. The Guthrie photo is the same exactly as the pdf. and the handout but different. The Guthrie photo is the same exactly as the pdf. and the handout but different. All 3 are from the exact same source and ironically the pdf. is a source that could have accomplished that. Except how do you make a paper copy that allows Guthrie to feel and see a raised stamp? How do you put evidence of an obscured raised stamp into pdf. if the base security paper didn’t have a real stamp in exacly where it appears in all 3: pdf., handout Guthrie photo? You can’t cut and paste an embossed stamp from security paper and if you did how would you align it perfectly on the new security grid? You see this embossed stamp creates very many questions. If you made a layered pdf. for the purpose of making an original and future editing wouldn’t you put the embossed seal on afterwards? Might you print everything onto the security paper then emboss them? Would you maybe be provided with 2 sheets of blank but embossed sheets of paper to print the pdf. onto? Did something in this process of the embossing of the certified hard copies and their subsequent printing cause fire alarms? Where the 2 blank sheets of security paper get stuck in the embosser as one and this is why they’re fingerprints? Did one of the 2 get printed on the opposite side of the security paper and they didn’t know which one was the root for the pdf. and which one was the root of the Guthrie photo or if it was the same one for both? Wouldn’t they desire to make an editable pdf. to produce the white handout and then import the security paper? Would they want the security paper blank or with an embossed stamp?

  8. Fred Dorsey
    Posted April 3, 2013 at 9:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Orly Taitz would like you to contact her. Check her website for contact information.
    Regards

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: