Posted on 01/13/2013 7:08:32 PM PST by Seizethecarp
In January of 2011 Gov Abercrombie told his friend, Mike Evans, that there was no BC for Obama in Hawaii - after raising Evans’ curiosity by telling a Star-Advertiser columnist that his investigative team had found something in the archives “actually written down...”.
So it had to be after that. Based on the evidence/clues, my guess is shortly after Abercrombie and the AG’s office forced HDOH Director Neal Palafox to resign, and Loretta Fuddy got in there to do the hatchet work.
They had to give Obama the BC# that was used for the forged short-form. The supposed Factcheck photos were actually taken in at least 2 different sessions, with the date-stamp showing the photos being taken right before the last of 3 breaches to Obama’s passport file (after which the head of the company that ignored their security protocols in order to allow the 3 breaches was rewarded by being the National Security Director - John Brennan). That was in March of 2008.
You’re right. The statute doesn’t allow them to assign somebody else’s BC#. That is probably why Neal Palafox wouldn’t go along with the scheme and had to be gotten rid of. It’s also probably why Onaka told his people to make a deliberately bad “new birth certificate” for Obama - and had them put a certifying statement that had TXE instead of THE, and the smiley face added to his signature.
The law also allows this new BC to be created only for people who were BORN IN HAWAII. Because Obama has no legally valid BC, the HDOH cannot lawfully say that he was born in Hawaii, and this provision is not lawful for them to do. To create a totally false BC without alertng anyone to the fact that there isn’t any legally valid BC for the person at all would be document fraud - on the part of Fuddy, who ordered Onaka to have the BC created. Onaka has the legal responsibility and legal authority to make sure that no certified copy is issued for a BC that was acquired through fraud. That’s why Onaka added the items in the “Evidence for delayed filing or alterations” and stamped the BC with LATE and ALTERED after Fuddy had seen the copy made but before he slipped it into the envelope for Corley and sealed it. He had to make sure that the certified copy was known to be non-valid, since there is no legally valid BC for Obama.
And that’s why Obama’s people had to create a forgery - to get rid of the notations that revealed the non-validity of the record.
That’s what the evidence suggests to me. There’s more evidence too, but I think we’ve actually talked about this before, haven’t we?
There was a handwritten birth index in 1961 but the HDOH claims that they destroyed that when they switched to computerized records. There was no change in the retention schedule and that handwritten index was required to be retained permanently so if they destroyed that list it was an illegal destruction.
Now what they have is a computer print-out. Easily manipulable. The pages are printed out from the computer and bound in a 2-prong printout binder. The pages are easily removed (a colleague watched them take a page out and put it back in before her very eyes). The other index books have the date range for the list at the top of every page. The 1960-64 birth index that the HDOH presents to the public now does not have a date range. Another colleague was accidentally given a different copy of the 1960-64 birth index - one that did not have Obama’s name listed in it.
The birth index that my colleague saw pages being taken out of did not have the name for Virginia Sunahara when she photographed the page. Shortly before that I had requested a non-certified short-form for Virginia and was told there was no birth record for her. Her BC# was apparently not under her name at that point. Whose name WAS it under?
Now the 1960-64 birth index includes the names of at least 2 people under their birth names rather than their adoptive names. There are no legally valid records under those names any more, and those records are legally required to be SEALED - unavailable for the public to know about. At least one other birth name is NOT included in the list so it wasn’t that they changed the parameters to include all birth names; they specifically added those 2 names from non-valid records. So the birth index is known to have been specifically altered by somebody within the HDOH to include names from non-valid records.
“That was in March of 2008.”
So the DOH gave Obama someone else’s BC number in 2008 (before he was elected) during Republican Governor Lingle’s Administration and when her appointed Health Director, Dr. Fukino was running the DOH.
So what law enforcement agency requested the new BC for then-Senator Obama and why?
No, the HDOH gave Obama somebody else’s BC# sometime from Feb- - April of 2011. Until right before that Abercrombie was saying the only thing his investigators could find in HI was a notation in some archive.
Obama’s people were hoping not to have to draw the HDOH into any of this. They knew the person whose BC# they used for the short-form forgery would not come forward to reveal the theft. The HDOH didn’t have to be involved in BC# swapping at all, at first.
Then the HDOH had to mess with the index, to get Obama’s name in it.
But it wasn’t until the discrepancies with the BC#’s got scrutiny and the eligibility bills were being considered in the states - that’s when they knew they were going to have to change BC#’s around and get an actual BC for Obama at the HDOH. Dec of 2010 was when Abercrombie gave gung-ho interviews to the NYT and the LA Times, saying how he was going to come out with Obama’s long-form. That was preparation for the big unveiling of this soon-to-be-created BC. Early in January 2010 the assassination of Judge John Roll killed 2 birds with one stone: it got rid of the judge who might have had the integrity to uphold an AZ eligibility bill, and it gave an excuse to say the “birthers” would do violence to Obama if a long-form wasn’t created to cover Obama’s ineligibility. The stage was all set. Shortly after Judge Roll’s assassination somebody - probably Eric Holder or Janet Napolitano - made the request for the HDOH to create a false long-form for Obama in order to insure his “safety” from all the “radical Arizona birthers”.
But Onaka wouldn’t do it and Palafox wouldn’t force him to. So they had to get rid of Palafox. They got Fuddy in there and from then on, the rule of law has meant nothing.
“No, the HDOH gave Obama somebody else’s BC# sometime from Feb- - April of 2011.”
Do you mean 151-61-010641 or are you talking about a different number?
10641, which is almost certainly the BC# that was originally given to either Stig Waidelich or Virginia Sunahara (depending on which of the 2 numbering methods is actually correct).
Interesting.... Has anyone like Mike Zullo or perhaps Jerome Corsi tried to contact this Mr. Neal Palafox? I would be curious to hear what he has to say.
I would love to get him and Onaka in a room together and listen to what they would say (if they felt like they could).
I would love to get him and Onaka in a room together and listen to what they would say (if they felt like they could).
Larry Klayman has filed an appeal in Alabama. You’ve been in contact with him. Could he request a certified verification from Dr. Onaka?
See if Dr. Onaka will verifiy the following:
Box 1a - Barack
Box 1b - Hussein
Box 1c - Obama, II
Box 2 – Male
Box 3 – single
Box 4 - no entry
Box 5a - August 4, 1961
Box 5b – 7:24 p.m.
Box 6a – Honolulu
Box 6b – Oahu
Box 6c – Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital
Box 6d – yes
Box 7a – Honolulu
Box 7b – Oahu
Box 7c – Honolulu, Hawaii
Box 7d – 6085 Kalanianaole Highway
Box 7e – yes
Box 7f – no entry/blank
Box 7g – no
Box 8 - Barack Hussein Obama
Box 9 – African
Box 10 - 25
Box 11 – Kenya, East Africa
Box 12a – Student
Box 12b – University
Box 13 - Stanley Ann Dunham
Box 14 – Caucasian
Box 15 – 18
Box 16 – Wichita, Kansas
Box 17a – None
Box 17b – no entry/blank
Box 18a - Stanley Ann Dunham Obama
Box 18b – 8-7-61
Box 19a – David A. Sinclair
Box 19b – 8-8-61
Box 20 – Aug-8 1961
Box 21 – V. K. Lee
Box 22 – Aug –8 1961
Box 23 – no entry/blank
Onaka was already asked to verify that those were the pieces of information in those boxes, when KS SOS Kris Kobach requested a verification that the information contained in the White House image is “identical to” the information in the original record.
Onaka already gave us the answer to that. He would not verify that it was identical.
So are you saying that box 23 is blank?
Couldn’t Klayman ask why Dr. Onaka won’t say “identical”.
Box 23 is not blank on the real BC. That’s why the information is not “identical” even though the stuff that’s actually on the White House image matches what’s on the real BC.
So if Klayman asked Dr. Onaka to verify each of the boxes and Dr. Onaka verified that box 23 was blank, won’t that mean the original BC was not altered? Even if Dr. Onaka doesn’t say they are identical.
No, because we still know there’s some reason that Onaka couldn’t verify that the White House image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”.
It could be that there is nothing in box 23 but there are LATE and ALTERED stamps, because it could be that the HDOH gave Obama this fake BC even though no evidence was ever offered to get Obama a complete BC before that. (Abercrombie did say to a Star-Bulletin columnist that his investigative team had found something “actually written down” in the archives. That doesn’t sound like there was ANY complete BC in the normal places a person would look - which was what caught Mike Evans’ attention, got him to call Abercrombie, and resulted in the on-air statements by Evans that Abercrombie had told him there’s no BC for Obama in Hawaii.)
It would be unlawful, but the folks at the HDOH office that are not in Onaka’s office have already been caught doing a bunch of unlawful stuff - including Fuddy, and she is the one with the authority to approve the creation of a falsified BC on law enforcement grounds. That would explain why Palafox was disposed of in the middle of all this dust-up over Abercrombie’s statements to Mike Evans - and replaced with Fuddy, who promptly instituted an unlawful policy refusing to allow people to see ALL the “contents” of their birth certificate, as required by HRS 338-13).
If Fuddy did that, it would be up to Onaka to make sure that no certified copy was issued for that BC which was obtained through (Fuddy’s) fraud. Given the circumstances, the best that Onaka could do may have been to put the LATE and ALTERED stamps on the BC so that even if the BC was certified it was not certified as VALID. And he could put red flags in his certifying elements so that even if Obama’s people C&P’ed them into a forgery (as they did), the red flags would still show - the TXE in the statement, and the smiley face in the signature. That smiley face in the signature is why Mike Zullo turned from thinking the skepticism was crazy and instead started seriously thinking that this could really be a forgery. The red flag did its job.
Like I said before, at this point another verification would only get Onaka to contradict himself at best, which is still reason to audit the records.
Sort of like the objector in KS being threatened into withdrawing the objection is supposed to be automatic grounds to keep the objection alive - AND to investigate who was making the threats and why. The threats strongly suggest that all is NOT well and needs further scrutiny. At least that’s my understanding, and it fits basic logic if we’re going to keep the mob from controlling everybody in the country.
I should also add that if there is nothing in box 23 in the real BC, as I suggested as a possibility in my last comment, Onaka could still justify refusing to say that the “information contained in” the White House image is identical to the “information contained in” the real BC.... because he interpreted “information” to include all the substance (including LATE and ALTERED stamps) and not just the “items”.
If so, he could still say that the information that’s actually IN the White House image “matches”, because the LATE and ALTERED stamps aren’t in the White House image and thus weren’t being asked about until the question of “identical” came up. As long as he certified only that the information actually contained in the White House image matches, he wouldn’t be lying.
Onaka can’t give him reasons, and can’t even tell him that something can’t be verified; all Onaka can do is verify every submitted piece of information that he lawfully can.
That’s why the mocking here (and claims that I’m reading too much into things) is so off-target. The ONLY LAWFUL WAY for Onaka to show that a submitted fact is not true is by leaving it out of what he verifies as true. Those are the rules; he has to follow them. They are critical to understanding what his letter of verification means.
And that is why it is journalistic malpractice for TPM Muckraker to deliberately leave out the first of the 2 pages of Bennett’s request, and for AZ Central to show the letter of verification without also showing the rules that Onaka had to follow when responding to the request.
One of the first thoughts I had when I looked at page 2 of Bennett’s request, when it was published on TPM Muckraker, was “Where’s the other page that he alludes to?” To get page two, the “reporter” would have had to ask for the communications involved, and would have received BOTH pages. Why did he choose to leave out one of those pages, and why should anybody consider him a credible source since it was so easily seen that he had cherry-picked what he allowed the public to see?
I’m confused about what’s been verified?
On SoS Bennett’s verification the items from the request form are not specifically verified and I believe your position is that Dr. Onaka could not verify them. But when I suggested that Klayman request a verification of every box on the BC, you say that Dr. Onaka has already verified them when he said the pdf info matched the original info. So why didn’t he just list those items on Bennett’s verification? And why could he list them on Klayman’s hypothetical verification? Or would Dr. Onaka refuse to verifiy those items on Klayman’s?
BTW: “the TXE in the statement”
Why doesn’t the “TXE” show up on the AP copy? Zooming in it looks like “THE” with some of the ink missing from the stamp or not transferring to the paper.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ap_obama_certificate_dm_110427.pdf
,
There are 2 things that “verified” can mean, as seen in these letters of verification:
1. Verification that a claim is on the record. This is all the MDEC attorneys asked for, and is totally irrelevant because the record itself could be non-valid.
2. Verification that a claim on the record is true. This is what Bennett asked for on the application and what he probably intended to ask for in his letter. But he used the words “from the record” (or something like that; I’m not looking at it right now), which would allow Onaka to interpret to mean he was asking for #1 above.
Onaka NEVER used language saying that any claims were true. The only thing he verified as true was the existence of the record.
If Klayman asked anything to be verified “from the record”, Onaka would interpret it as a #1-type request, and Onaka has already told us that where a field has “information” in the White House image, the record on file also has that same “information”. He can’t define for us what “information” means, so we don’t know if LATE or ALTERED stamps are “information”, or whether blank space is “information”
What he did tell us (by silence) is that the information contained in the White House image is not “identical to” the information in the record filed. The White House image is a forgery.
The TXE is very clear in the AP image. The lines are thicker there - at least twice the thickness of the T and H in other places on that stamp. If that was going to be because there was excess ink on the ink stamp pad, then it would make no sense for there to be too LITTLE ink in that same place.
Why do the hash marks only show up at the edge? Was this supposed to be a scan, a photocopy, or what? Ah, as I look I can see the border of the forged short-form showing through the back. This is apparently a PDF that the AP reporter made from the packet of photocopies that were handed out to the reporters at the press gaggle. We’re supposed to believe that the scanner or copier was set to a dark enough level that the border from a page stapled to the back of the scanned page would show up, but hash-marks on the page itself wouldn’t show up, except at the left side when taken from a supposedly flat BC (on security paper designed to help keep anything from bleeding through from a different piece of paper) lying flat on the scanner/copier. Yeah, right. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.