Posted on 03/27/2013 7:04:25 PM PDT by butterdezillion
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 (link provided in first comment) 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.
About a week or so ago (no I don’t have the link or remember when it was or who asked the question) some reporter asked Cruz on tv if he was a NBC and Cruz smiled and said he was a US citizen.
Several reasons:
1. Some weren’t in Congress then, like Ted Cruz.
2. We have proof of crimes now; we didn’t have that before.
3. The threat of race riots seems like piddles compared to what Obama has already done to our military and looks to do to the whole country.
4. Economic collapse is inevitable anyway, if we don’t do something drastic.
5. There is now no doubt in anybody’s mind that Obama means to throw away the US Constitution.
6. Many are seeing that everything that has made America free and prosperous is up for grabs, and that is a very scary prospect. The cost of doing nothing to stop this is getting much, much higher than the cost of at least trying.
4. Rand Paul has demonstrated through the drone filibuster that conservatives are hungry for a leader and will stand with him if he has the guts to do what is necessary - and that those on the left (like Oliver Stone, for instance) who were concerned about the power of government may also cross traditional lines to defend the Constitution.
Truth is, there were people on the left who raised alarms about Constitutional issues - particularly related to unreasonable searches and seizures - when Bush was President and we should have listened to them. They said, “What if a power-grabbing tyrant comes into power and abuses this? What protections will the people have?” Makes me wonder if they knew that Obama was in the pipeline... If we conservatives will acknowledge that they were right on that issue, maybe we can form a coalition that transcends the Dem v Rep lines.
Same thing with folks like “anonymous”. While I don’t savor their techniques, I do believe they use them because they recognize that the laws have been used to hide powerful entities from justice. I don’t think they realize just how central that whole corruption bit has been used by Obama, but I think the death of that RSS guy (I forget his name) has woken them up. They did a fantastic job of exposing the corruption in Steubenville with the rape case. My big bent on the eligibility issue has been the crimes and cover-up. I probably don’t agree with the politics of the folks at “anonymous”, but I think we’re probably kindred spirits when it comes to the crimes and corruption. Why not build on that?
Same thing with Occupy Wall Street. I think they recognize that the politicians are in bed with the bankers. They just don’t know that the worst example of that is BArack Obama and his entire thug regime. The bailout went to foreign, sharia-compliant banks. The stimulus went to companies that donated to Obama’s camaign and then went bankrupt, leaving the taxpayers holding the tab. Again, I probably don’t agree with a lot of the politics of the people in OWS, but some of them are not against rich people but against the CORRUPTION that gets rich people and politicians to use each other while stiffing everybody else. We can build on that.
The people who were offended by the rape comments - a lot of that was just the media stirring the pot and misrepresenting things. But who is it who is standing with the rape victim in Steubenville? On this and so many other issues, if conservatives will have the courage to say the stuff that needs to be said, we can help people see what it means to fight for AMERICA and not just for one political side. For instance, I heard somebody in SF say that he had left Iran because they tried to tell people who they could have sex with, how, and when, and he can’t believe that the same issue is here in America (regarding the gay marriage issue). This is an issue GOPer’s are scared of. But we could be telling this guy and others like him that in Iran it was a question of whether you die, not whether you can have insurance together - and Obama has CONSTANTLY sided with the Islamists, the ones who want sharia. Benghazi was to funnel weapons to the Al Qaeda-linked “resistance” in Syria.
I know this wasn’t part of your question, but I think America needs us to focus on the essentials of what America IS, and why it is so important that she remain what she has been. If we can focus on those critical things and swallow our pride, I think we can forge alliances that screw up all the party line stuff that the establishment political machines have depended on.
The eligibility issue is a prime example of how that works. It started with Hillary supporters - against McCain and against Obama. But their point was valid, and as more evidence was available the people who love truth saw that something rotten was happening, in both parties. The rule of law transcended the political parties we all came from.
If we can learn to major in the majors we may find out that there are more who agree with us on the core principles of America than we ever thought. And the more Obama “radically transforms” America to a lawless place, the more that will be true.
Thanks for the info!
Based on your description of the event, I did some searching and discovered it was none other than Sean Hannity who asked the question!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ria4z52PgSI
Naturally, Ted Cruz is evasive about answering the question, at first, then, with the help of Hannity, both he and Cruz conclude that Cruz is a “U.S. citizen.”
LOL! Well, duh!
No one is questioning his U.S. citizenship, what we question is his Article II, Section I “Natural Born” citizenship.
Sheesh! Even Obama claims to be a “Native Citizen!” That’s more than Cruz’s claim!
And, did you see how Hannity didn’t say a word about Cruz’s father being a non-U.S. Citizen? He willfully neglected any mention at all of Cruz’s dad, and just concentrated on mom’s U.S. citizenship.
I really like Cruz, but I can’t, in all good conscience, give him a Natural Born pass.
Cheers!
Yes, that was it. My mistake, he said he is a citizen by birth. Glad I was able to cast a vote his way.
The HI statute doesn’t say who creates the new BC but I’m pretty sure it’s the HDOH itself who does, because they are the ones who would have the old documents to use for C&P, authority to issue the BC#’s, etc.
We’ll get to it later in this series, but there are 2 different levels of sloppiness in the White House image.
There is the sloppiness of what the HDOH sent Obama: misalignment, kerning, TXE, smiley face, etc.
And there is the sloppiness of the White House having to clean up what the HDOH had put in that was totally unacceptable for their purposes. That is why they had to do the layers. I suspect that the layers were used to take out stuff that the HDOH put in that didn’t work for the lie. For instance, a screwy last digit in the BC#, as a red flag. Dates with digits in a different font. Stanley Ann Dunham’s signature. Those are all things that required the different layers.
The seal is found on the same layer as the cross-hatch background. But the cross-hatch background did not come from the HDOH; it doesn’t have the necessary skew in the lines. The White House had to create the cross-hatch design with a very light “seal” on it, and use that as one layer. So there may have been something screwy with the seal, and/or a new background layer had to be made to hide the ALTERED and LATE stamps on the BC the HDOH sent.
As we’ve seen with the Sunahara death certificate, which was only done by the HDOH. Witness protection programs are not authorized in HI statute to alter DEATH certificates. And obviously there is no need to protect somebody who has already died. Those red flags were put in by the HDOH itself.
I believe the sloppiness was deliberate, in all these instances.
I believe it was deliberately sloppy because Alvin Onaka knew that it was unlawful. Because that provision only applies for somebody who was born in Hawaii, and Onaka cannot verify that Obama was born in Hawaii, as he made clear in the letter of verification for AZ SOS Ken Bennett.
Can you imagine how effective and how much integrity there could be in a Senator who knew he could never be President or Vice-President? That would be a built-in check to the natural desire for ultimate power and using his elected position as a springboard for more power.
If Cruz is willing, he could truly be God’s gift to America. All these ineligible guys could. They could do the hard work that the Presidential hopefuls will never have the guts to do.
Yup.
As much as I don’t like John McCain, at least he had enough integrity to question his own Natural Born status and have Theodore Olsen and Laurence Tribe look into it.
Interestingly enough, Tribe and Olsen keep using the term “citizen parents” (plural) when discussing children born abroad...
Cheers!
-PJ
Yes, I’m aware of that argument. However, it’s a moot point when one has been taught since childhood by EVERY single teacher or professor that BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens to confer “Natural Born” status to a child born overseas.
In talking with my 90-year-old Grandmother (a retired lawyer), she too says that she was taught all her life that BOTH parents had to be U.S. Citizens to confer Natural Born status when a child was born abroad.
It wasn’t until Obama came on the scene that such a seemingly succinct, perfect, and well-known definition was been tortured to death by everybody and his brother.
Now, it doesn’t seem to matter to anyone. Just as long as it’s “not my guy.”
Hell, if both of Cruz’s parents were non-citizens and he were born in Canada, but his great-great-great-grandparents had been U.S. citizens at one point in time, I’m sure one could drum up the appropriate “scholars” who would make claims that Cruz was Natural Born via historic bloodline.
That is all.
Over and out.
Erratum: “definition was been tortured to death” should be “definition HAS been tortured to death”
Over and out.
“EVERY single teacher or professor that BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens to confer “Natural Born” status to a child born overseas.”
There must be old civics books and history books that show that.
Do you know if anyone has ever produced such a book?
Spot on!
We need Cruz in the senate trenches, fighting against tyranny!
Pick up ANY old book you’d like. They’ve always use citizen parents in the plural when speaking about a Natural Born child who is born abroad.
By the way, prior to May 24, 1934, U.S. citizen mothers were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The citizenship was conferred via their father.
So, yes, it’s in numerous old civics and history books. Go to an old library sometime and key in on the older history books. You’ll be amazed at what you thought you knew that you really didn’t know.
Cheers!
Thank you for all of your work on this.
I think of how the Republicans forced Nixon to resign. The press was all over Nixon, as well they should have been. Today we have a corrupted press and a compromised Supreme Court, and we also have the likes of McConnell and Boehner (and everybody else around them) who always seem to appear nervous in public, walking on egg shells, both looking over their shoulders every time I see them on TV, both prisoners of political correctness, afraid of being called racist by racists, afraid that 13 million blacks and who knows how many hispanics will riot in the streets if their tin god is found out to be a fraud, which they must know he is, or at least by this time, have an inkling that something is very wrong about him. I bet they don’t sleep very well at night, not worrying about Obama’s lack of eligibility necessarily, but their own legacies and how they and everybody else who knows about this will be driven out of town on rails, or so I hope, so help me God.
They should have taken care of this a long time ago when they could have nipped it in the bud, and they were too gutless to do so.
This travesty wouldn’t have happened forty years ago. People were different then.
I remember there’s one case for
“born outside the u.s. and the mom is married”
(which would apply to Cruz’s case)
and another for
“born outside the u.s. and the mom isn’t married.”
“....He may have been a US citizen ‘at birth’,but he may have also been a Canadian citizen at ‘at birth’,and a Cuban citizen ‘at birth’. It is the individual laws of those countries that determine whether or not he is a citizen of that country.......”
This is an important point you brought out.
For someone to be president, there should be no possibility that some other country can make a claim as to his citizenship.
That’s why both parents should be u.s. citizens before the child is born; no means of exerting influence.
I.e. the foreign country can’t say to the parents ‘we don’t care whether you’re a resident alien of the u.s, you’re still a citizen of our country
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.