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.
Just because old civics and history books mention that a child born abroad to two citizens parents is a ‘Natural born Citizen’, doesn’t make it law.
The following is often used to support people like Rubio who seek to be President, but it was superceded centuries ago and is a false argument.
“The First U.S. Congress included in the 1790 Immigration & Naturalization Act language to alert the State Department to the fact that Americans born abroad are “natural born” citizens” and are not to be viewed as foreigners due to foreign birth. They were not granted citizenship via that US statute rather citizenship was stated as a fact that must be recognized by immigration authorities. These children were not citizens by any other means than natural law, according to Congress, and statutory law was written to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized.”
Firstly, this is not a reasonable explanation. It fails to recognize that Congress only has powers over naturalization and has no power to define “natural born Citizen”, which has nothing to do with naturalization. Furthermore, if Congress wants to tell the State Department something, they don’t have to enact legislation to do it.
But more important is that all of the following naturalization acts, 1795, 1802, etc., were also passed to naturalize the children of U.S. citizens born abroad. And the words “natural born” were repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act and never returned again.
A natural born citizen does not require a law, or statute, to determine nationality or citizenship. Born in a nation (jus solis) of citizen parents (jus sanguinis) a child is naturally a citizen, period.
[The latin expression, ‘jus solis’, means “of the soil”; ‘jus sanguinis’ means “of the blood”.]
Many military families are surprised to discover that their children, born in military hospitals at overseas locations, are not eligible to be President though deriving their citizenship from their parents.
When the U.S.Constitution was written I’m sure that the nation’s founders never foresaw U.S. military bases in foreign locales manned by millions of Americans and accompanied by their families.
That isn’t true of Mexico.
To be a Mexican citizen, one or both parents must be Mexican citizens. Just being born in Mexico doesn’t matter.
Gov.George Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents. Mexico did not recognize George Romney as being Mexican, and when his parents returned to Utah when George was 7-years old, he was a U.S. citizen because his parents were Americans.
George Romney couldn’t serve as President, due to his birth in a foreign nation, and dropped his attempt to become a Republican candidate for that office in the 1960s. His son, Gov.Mitt Romney, delivered his ‘Natural born Citizen’ bona fides to the Republican Party early in 2012, as did Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. Richard J. Santorum, who is ineligible to be President, did not. His father was an Italian citizen who naturalized as a U.S. citizen three years AFTER his son’s birth in Pennsylvania.
Many thanks for the info on Mexico with respect to Romney.
That is an example of the foreign country not having a claim on the person born there.
Then is he a citizen by u.s. rules (most likely).
Since Mexico hasn’t a claim on him, and the u.s does, then he can’t be in the position to have to choose between the two.
“.....I.e. the foreign country can’t say to the parents”
In my post snippet above, “parents” should read “children”
“Just because old civics and history books mention that a child born abroad to two citizens parents is a ‘Natural born Citizen’, doesn’t make it law.”
Naturally, it doesn’t. I was calling attention to the distortion of history and education via the Progressives.
Those of us who were educated years ago, remember what a Natural Born citizen was. Our textbooks and history books and teachers and professors ALL confirmed to us what a Natural Born citizen was. However, now that the Progressives have taken over, they are no longer teaching our children what a Natural Born citizen really is.
Cheers!
Former “war hero” allen west could NOT “absorb” Mike Zullo’s prove of the criminal act of forged documents saying he had to distance himself from it because he might one day run for political office again, hello!!!
According to Carl Gallup!!!
Why isn’t Cruz a dual citizen, since his father was Cuban and mother was American?
Really?
Well, my estimation of West just went into the toilet.
Very most of our military active personnel seems to be in the same tank by their “weak” OATH taking to the Constitution by defend and protect it!!!
Where are they today, hmmm???
Agreed.
A Natural Born citizen is a citizen, who at the time of their birth has the right to one and only one citizenship because this citizen was born in the country of which his or her parents were citizens.
Yes.
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.