Replies

Sometimes records exist that have no LEGAL value.

Sometimes that’s because of the quality of the documentation/evidence on which the record is based which makes it not credible enough to be considered as legal proof on its face (prima facie evidence). For instance, Hawaii statute says that BC’s filed a year or more after the birth and BC’s that were altered (other than a name change) are legally suspect. By themselves they are not to be considered proof of anything. Instead, the state marks them distinctly on their face so that when they are used as evidence it is known that the quality of the supporting documentation/evidence is unknown and has to be checked. Basically, the state is saying that this is a claim only - basically a rumor that the state cannot vouch for as accurate.

Other records may be incomplete. The section of the BC request form that is for internal use has a place for the worker to check-off various kinds of records, such as pending, incomplete, COHB, etc. Pending and incomplete records have no legal weight because they don’t have all the required information.

Some records are legally non-valid because the legal reality they document no longer exists. For instance, when a person is adopted they are issued a new birth certificate which shows the adoptive parents as their parents. The original birth certificate still exists and can be used as EVIDENCE if it is made available by judicial decree, but what is on that birth certificate is no longer LEGALLY accurate so it is legally void.

As I explained in my blog post about this (IIRC anyway), the mechanism by which the EVVE system flags suspect records is through a data field called the “void flag”. When a record is not legally valid that record is flagged within that field as being “void”. Hawaii’s vital records department participates in EVVE so they have a “void flag” field for their vital records, to note when the record is not legally valid.

To print out an index, the criteria for the records to be printed would be used to sort out the records to be printed (such as the date range, etc. The date range is normally included as a header on every page of that index, but in only the 1960-64 birth index, that date-range heading doesn’t appear). If the index is to show legally-valid records, it would be specified to print only records not flagged as void. If even void records are printed, then the list tells you nothing except that the name is in the system for some reason or another. Names listed on it could be for legally valid records or they could mean there was a crayon-on-napkin declaration that was once submitted.

And the 1960-64 birth index includes names that are associated with void records - the birth names of 2 adopted children whose birth records under those names are not only legally non-valid but are required by law to be sealed from public knowledge.

The reason this is significant is because although there can be more than one birth record having the same BC#, only one of those records can be legally valid at a time. The BC# is supposed to represent a physical person, whose birth is attested to by somebody’s oath. That person could have records under different legal names - such as the birth name and the adoptive name, but only one of those names can be legally valid at a time. Otherwise you could have 2 physical persons both claiming to be that baby whose birth was attested to on the original paper record.

There was one child whose birth was attested to on the BC numbered 641. Virginia Sunahara. Another record could be created for #641, where the name associated with it is Barack Hussein Obama II. But only one of those names could be legally valid at a time. If that number was shared between 2 physical people, only one of them could show up in the database of legally valid records at a time. And the only way to get both names to appear in a print-out is by allowing legally non-valid records to be printed as well as valid ones.

And we’ve got evidence of both those phenomena. The database did not have Virginia Sunahara’s name in it when queried for me but DID have her name when her brother requested her COLB. So her record, under her name, had a void flag switched on and off for it. The void flag was on when they wanted her “other name” (Barack Hussein Obama) to appear to be legally valid, and the void flag was off when they needed to print out her COLB for Duncan. Somebody at the HDOH office is changing that void flag at will. An audit of the computer transaction logs would show us who was doing that and when.

And the 1960-64 birth index shows names for records that are marked as void (the birth names for 2 adopted boys) so we know that the birth index which includes both Virginia and Obama has the ability to show void records.

And incidentally, the same thing would allow a BC# to be altered momentarily and then switched back to normal. When Virginia’s COLB was printed out they needed a different BC#. So they probably created another record with Virginia Sunahara’s name and birth info, but the BC# from another baby who died - probably later in August - and then temporarily voided the record for the baby who really belonged to that BC# until they had printed the COLB for Virginia showing the fake BC#, at which time they voided the fake Sunahara record so the real record would be the one that showed up in a query as if nothing had ever been done.

I believe they did the same thing with Stig Waidelich, in an attempt to make Obama’s out-of-sequence BC# and “date filed” seem less suspicious.

That’s why both Sunahara’s and Waidelich’s BC#’s are so out of sequence. The HDOH didn’t want to use a BC# for somebody who has a copy of their BC with that BC# and could thus prove the tampering at the HDOH. They had to use a BC# from an infant who died - and preferably an infant who died without a name. They had to use the BC#’s that were available, and the end result is BC#’s that are so far out of sequence that the only way they could have landed like that is if the HDOH assigned BC#’s randomly. Which is the opposite of how Janice Okubo has said they did things.

I hope this doesn’t just make things too complicated.