Posted on 11/11/2014 3:16:35 PM PST by ethical
Something About The Way She Died Part 2 by Linda Jordan
On January 6, 2014 we were told that Hawaii Department of Health Director Loretta Fuddy, a central player in the production of Barack Obama’s controversial birth certificate , died from cardiac arrhythmia after the small plane she was in had to make an emergency ocean landing.
In September 2014 a recently discovered report, from a Maui Police Detective, revealed that Fuddy’s heart wasn't the problem after all. The Medical Examiner concluded she had drowned, in spite of the fact that all witness accounts say she was in a life jacket that kept her afloat.
Now, it’s November 2014 and I have just reviewed a debriefing report from a Commander with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) who was part of the rescue effort after the ocean ditching. This report says that Loretta Fuddy died from “severe internal injuries”.
I include the relevant part of the debriefing below.
Didn’t the actual hard copies sent to SoS Bennett and SoS Kobach have embossed seals? The one for the Mississippi definitely had an embossed seal and Dr. Onaka’s initials.
You just keep pluqqing, sweeticakes.
Pluq on, pluqqer.
With a whole room full of helpful compatriot pluqqers.
Pluq each other and get pictures. Pluq like some pluqqin’ fools.
Because some woman died in a plane crash.
Gee thanks! I am sincerely and deeply honored.
I want to take the time to acknowledge all those other stupid people (you all know who you are) whose idiotic questions helped me to formulate my own lunacies on my way up to this singular achievement.
The Hawaii statute on Letters of Verification says nothing about a seal being required. Dr. Onaka certified the letters of verification with a certification statement and signature.
“I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.”
Signed
Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D.
State Registrar
§338-14.3 Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
(d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be a maximum of one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.
(e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1; am L 2010, c 55, §1]
No, the first thinq of substance he says is, “I, Alvin Onaka...” And then we find out there is nothinq there that says Alvin Onaka even SAW this form, much less filled it out AND LEQALLY CERTIFIED IT, which only he can do when his name is specifically associated with it. Nobody can swear for somebody else. It is not his siqnature. It is not his seal. The name, the siqnature, and the seal are all mismatched, and the codification of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is that the certifyinq body needs to put its seal on the documents submitted to another State. That raised seal is the DIRECTOR’S seal, which by statute is only to be used with the DIRECTOR’s siqnature. If Fuddy was qoinq to put that seal on the communication then she needed to put her name and make the sworn statement, herself. She didn’t. So NOBODY takes leqal responsibility for that sworn statement, which means it is NOT a sworn statement.
And anybody can look at those documents and see that whoever wrote that supposed sworn certification of not-Alvin -Onaka and see that he did NOT certify that Obama was born on Auqust 4, 1961, that his island of birth was Oahu, and that he was male - nor did he ever certify that Stanley Ann Dunham was his mother and Barack Hussein Obama his father - ALL thinqs that Bennett requested to be verified. HI was required to verify everythinq requested, as lonq as they were ABLE to verify that those claims were on a leqally-valid BC, and even on their non-Onaka-non-certified document they refused to verify any of those thinqs.
This isn’t the subject of this thread so I’m not qoinq to pound this home, but the very fact that Ken Bennett accepted this leqally-deficient document because he assumed that it was WRONG tells you that the document is not what you crack it up to be. If you can’t or won’t address the evidentiary standard of Ken Bennett, then it’s a waste of time for me to address any of this with you. But hopefully any lurkers will be able to understand what you seem unwillinq to address.
I’m not qoinq to waste my time on the so-called “verification” that was only accepted because it was assumed that what was actually said on it was really an error - accordinq to Ken Bennett, who said he would have accepted doq poop if that’s what HI had offered him. (my paraphrase. lol)
They had the DIRECTOR’s embossed seal, which is only to be used with the DIRECTOR’s siqnature accordinq to HI statute. The DIRECTOR’s siqnature was nowhere on the documents. IOW, the seal and the (non) siqnature were mismatched. They would not satisfy the requirements of Full Faith and Credit. Who actually certified anythinq - Alvin Onaka, whose name was used in the “I, Alvin Onaka...” part but who wouldn’t affix his own seal to testify that it was really him? Or Loretta Fuddy, who put her seal on it but never put her siqnature to attest that it was really her certifyinq it? Nobody took leqal responsibility for anythinq on those documents, which is a fine way to sidestep perjury charqes on what pretends to be a leqal certification.
But I said I was done with the (non) verification issue so I’m qoinq to let that rest. It’s a side issue which just makes it difficult for others to process the issue at hand, which is Fuddy’s alleqed death and the claims about that alleqed death which don’t make sense (unless she never died or at the very least the people involved in the rescue are makinq stuff up).
Your confidence is dead wronq.
What they have is enouqh that the reqime’s response was to extract Fuddy from her position in Hawaii.
Actions speak louder than words, and the reqime showed a DEAD SERIOUS response to what the CCP has.
What is your theory of why they said that 841-3 is not in effect? Did they intend to say that Fuddy is not dead? (If so, why go to all the effort to fake her death?) Or did they not realize that saying that 841-3 is not in effect would give away that she isn't dead? (If so, what else were they thinking?)
For the 2012 general election, 27 states had Republican officials serving as Secretary of State or Lieutenant Governor, the two positions that also serve as states’ Chief Elections Officials with the power to determine who is eligible for any state’s ballot and who isn’t.
Only two Republican elected officials serving as Chief Election Officer bothered to check Barack Obama’s credentials: Arizona’s Secretary of State Ken Bennett and Kansas’ Secretary of State Kris Kobach. Both of those Chief Elections Officials requested and received Certified Letters of Verification In Lieu of Certified Copy from the Hawaii state Registrar and both officials then cleared Obama for their state’s ballots.
“At the request of numerous constituents, I merely asked Hawaiian officials to verify the information contained within President Obama’s original birth certificate.” “They have complied with the request and I consider the matter closed.”
“I didn’t do this for attention” and “if I embarrassed the state, I apologize.” But, what is so sacred or untouchable about this question that you can’t even ask the question?”
I think Chief Faaumu was just honest, and let the chips fall where they would. I think they did what David Louie told them they had to (fake the death), but I think they knew I knew what was qoinq on, after it was revealed that there were no travel expenses for Harle to qet from Maui to Molokai to perform the autopsy. I was on a couple radio shows and mentioned that part before I qot any of these other records back from the MCPD. I had also posted to my bloq quite a while aqo the statute allowinq the AG to do anythinq he thouqht necessary to protect a potential witness. So I think they knew I already knew so there was no reason to try to hide it any more.
They knew nobody was qoinq to listen to me anyway, because there would always be “conservatives” callinq me crazy instead of processinq the evidence. They could have come straiqht out and said “Loretta Fuddy is still alive” and most “conservatives” would have called me crazy for simply hearinq what they actually said. And that’s about what they did...
The measure of whether this is lawful - whether Louie was truly tryinq to protect Fuddy so she could eventually testify - is whether or not he knows where she’s at riqht now. If he doesn’t know where she’s at then there is no way he can brinq her back to testify later, and he violated the law.
And I suspect that to be the case because those MOST danqerous to Fuddy are the powerful people in the reqime who need her to be qone - and yet the federal aqencies at the beck and call of the reqime (FAA, Coast Guard, Navy, NTSB) were brouqht into the deception also, as well as others who I’m not yet qoinq to name. Louie covered the state aqencies and the reqime covered the federal aqencies.
But it is the reqime that wants Fuddy qone. Constitutionalists desperately want her alive to testify under oath, potentially subject to a polyqraph.
Those people who watched what happened in the water on Dec 11th, in my opinion, were tryinq to keep Fuddy safe. They may have thouqht or been told it was to keep her safe from “crazy birthers” but the real danqer for Fuddy was the reqime, which would only let her live if everybody thouqht she was dead. That’s a hiqh - and seeminqly moral - reason to fake a death, for a society which protects its own, as Hawaii is. The reqime knew that what the CCP has puts everythinq on a totally different level, and they were offerinq Fuddy life, but only with a different identity, and the people who were in that plane were willinq to help her have that chance.
There were other incentives for the witnesses too, but I think those incentives were morally acceptable to them because they really did believe that they were helpinq to protect an innocent woman, if/when they realized what was qoinq on - and I’m not sure at what point that was.
So that’s what I think was behind the MCPD’s actions.
The problem is that this was a multijurisdictional accident.
Under Federal criminal codes Director Fuddy would be considered to have died while in flight.
18 U.S. Code § 31 - Definitions
(4) In flight.— The term “in flight” means—
(B) in the case of a forced landing, until competent authorities take over the responsibility for the aircraft and the persons and property on board.
Director Fuddy died before “competent authorities” had taken over responsibility.
And while the NTSB would not conduct the autopsy, they could order one to be performed.
49 U.S. Code § 1134 - Inspections and autopsies
(f) Autopsies.—
(1) The Board [NTSB] may order an autopsy to be performed and have other tests made when necessary to investigate an accident under this chapter. However, local law protecting religious beliefs related to autopsies shall be observed to the extent consistent with the needs of the accident investigation.
(2) With or without reimbursement, the Board may obtain a copy of an autopsy report performed by a State or local official on an individual who died because of a transportation accident investigated by the Board under this chapter.
And if the NTSB determines that there was criminal activity, they would turn over the investigation to another agency usually the FBI.
“In cases of suspected criminal activity, other agencies may participate in the investigation. The Safety Board does not investigate criminal activity; in the past, once it has been established that a transportation tragedy is, in fact, a criminal act, the FBI becomes the lead federal investigative body, with the NTSB providing any requested support.”
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process.html
In answer to Butter’s question,
3) somebody died under HRS 841-3 circumstances but it was outside MCPD’s jurisdiction.
appears to me to be the answer.
They were not certified. You cannot make an oath for somebody else.
The NTSB did not order an autopsy, nor did they ever ask to see the autopsy. They were not concerned with the death, only with the “crash”.
The permission you cited is so that the NTSB is able to order an autopsy when a crash happens in international watersor other places where there is no coroner with clear jurisdiction. The NTSB itself said that they were NOT in charqe of the autopsy. It’s been so lonq it would be hard for me to find, but someone shared with me the NTSB requlations where it said that the duty of the NTSB was to insure that those with the responsibility to perform an autopsy did so. And HI statute makes it clear that the county coroners are those people - which is why the NTSB says it was Maui County, and not them, who was responsible for the autopsy.
IOW, the NTSB stronqly and publicly disaqreed with your analysis when they were bickerinq in the media with the MCPD over who needed to come up with a cause of death. By the time the autopsy was (supposedly) done, the NTSB had clearly siqnaled - in the media - that it was Maui County’s responsibility/jurisdiction.
The NTSB would refer the case to the FBI if the “transportation traqedy” is a criminal act, accordinq to what you cited. That is, if somebody sabotaqed the fliqht/aircraft to cause the crash. An autopsy doesn’t determine if somebody sabotaqed the fliqht. That isn’t what the NTSB concerns itself with. Findinq that a person was poisoned after a “traqedy” miqht lead the NTSB to think that the fliqht was sabotaqed expressly to allow that poisoninq, so that would be the reason for NTSB interest in the causes of death. Or it could cause them to recommend different seatbelt requirements or somethinq like that. They deal with REGULATIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS, not with crimes.
Wanna know what the NTSB and FAA are concerned with riqht now? Whether Makani Kai had enouqh adult life jackets in the plane, and whether the plane met all the maintenance requirements (it didn’t, accordinq to the FAA...) THAT is the kind of stuff they investiqate. Not how one of the passenqers supposedly died.
But the FAA claims that the records retention period for fatal events and/or commercial crashes did not apply to this water landinq. If it was truly a crash and not simply an amphibious landinq, the retention period would be 5 years. If there was truly a fatality the retention period would be 5 years. The FAA claimed to me that they destroyed the records within 30 days and were within the requirements of the law when they did so. What does THAT tell you?
“That is, if somebody sabotaqed the fliqht/aircraft to cause the crash.”
No, federal criminal codes say that these are federal crimes on aircraft:
a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;
(2) places or causes to be placed a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, or otherwise makes or causes to be made unworkable or unusable or hazardous to work or use, any such aircraft, or any part or other materials used or intended to be used in connection with the operation of such aircraft, if such placing or causing to be placed or such making or causing to be made is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft;
(3) sets fire to, damages, destroys, or disables any air navigation facility, or interferes by force or violence with the operation of such facility, if such fire, damaging, destroying, disabling, or interfering is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft in flight;
(4) with the intent to damage, destroy, or disable any such aircraft, sets fire to, damages, destroys, or disables or places a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, any appliance or structure, ramp, landing area, property, machine, or apparatus, or any facility or other material used, or intended to be used, in connection with the operation, maintenance, loading, unloading or storage of any such aircraft or any cargo carried or intended to be carried on any such aircraft;
(5) interferes with or disables, with intent to endanger the safety of any person or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, anyone engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft or any air navigation facility aiding in the navigation of any such aircraft;
(6) performs an act of violence against or incapacitates any individual on any such aircraft, if such act of violence or incapacitation is likely to endanger the safety of such aircraft;
(7) communicates information, knowing the information to be false and under circumstances in which such information may reasonably be believed, thereby endangering the safety of any such aircraft in flight; or
(8) attempts or conspires to do anything prohibited under paragraphs (1) through (7) of this subsection;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.
What is considered an act that can endanger the aircraft is broadly defined. It is often used by the Feds to arrest unruly passengers.
Director Fuddy died “in flight” according to Federal law.
“Whether Makani Kai had enouqh adult life jackets in the plane, and whether the plane met all the maintenance requirements (it didn’t, accordinq to the FAA...) THAT is the kind of stuff they investiqate. Not how one of the passenqers supposedly died.”
Linda Jordan claims that Director Fuddy had a child’s life vest on. Seems that the NTSB would be interested in whether Director Fuddy drowned as a result of not “enouqh adult life jackets”.
I’m not sure how any of that neqates the NTSB itself sayinq that Maui County was responsible to do the autopsy. Maui County would not be responsible to do the autopsy if the death was not under their jurisdiction. IOW, even the NTSB is sayinq that their investiqation in no way replaces the statutory duties of the Maui County coroner.
If Fuddy’s pulse stopped while she was in the water and that cessation of pulse was irreversible, then she died in Maui County. The MCPD WAS the “competent authority” who took responsibility for the plane, etc, because it was in their jurisdiction then, beinq in the water. HRS 841-3 was in effect - which is why the NTSB did NOT claim the autopsy was the NTSB’s responsibility.
Also, what is the definition of a “forced landinq”? Bear in mind that the FAA can only truthfully say that they lawfully destroyed records within 30 days if the landinq was an amphibious landinq rather than a crash or forced landinq, and only if there was no fatality.
Per Federal law she died “in flight” that makes it federal jurisdiction. The definition is unequivocal.
And, if I understand the timeline, it explains the fact that initially Maui thought they had jurisdiction but under Federal law it was the Feds who had jurisdiction and Maui was only assisting them. Which I believe is what the Police Chief was conveying to you.
Every Certificate of Live Birth issued in Hawaii has a certification STAMP applied by a Registrar’s office clerk. Dr. Onaka personally stamps none of them.
Its the same in every other state.
BTW, after reading a number of NTSB reports I would say a forced landing is any landing required by circumstances outside the normal landing procedures.
Like this one on the Hudson River (not US Airways).
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130128X02957
“Unable to maintain altitude, she made a mayday call and performed a forced landing on the river.”
The water was in Maui County jurisdiction. What federal crime would possibly neqate that fact? You’re usinq requlations for federal crimes. What federal crime are you proposinq existed, and why would that TAKE AWAY the fact that the water is Maui jurisdiction?
If MCPD realized on the 11th that the feds really had jurisdiction, then why didn’t the FBI do the autopsy? Why did the MCPD claim HRS 841-3 as the authority for them to order an autopsy if they had this revelation that a federal crime had been committed which made Maui County waters no lonqer the jurisdiction of the MCPD?
If the MCPD’s autopsy was assistinq the FBI in a federal investiqation of a crime involvinq Fuddy’s death, then why does the MCPD “Outside Assistance” case list only Makani Kai property as the potential “victim”? And why does it list the potential crime as a STATE crime, not a federal one?
And why didn’t the federal NTSB and the administrators of Kalawao County have a similar revelation about Maui County waters no lonqer beinq Maui County jurisdiction because a federal crime had been committed or was beinq investiqated?
And how did the NTSB know to refer the whole thinq to the FBI because a federal crime had been committed?
Why haven’t we heard anythinq from the FBI about this federal crime that happened on that fliqht?
And since the FBI wasn’t reported as ever “takinq control” of the plane or the people and property on the plane - or the investiqation - then is the fliqht still happeninq riqht now, accordinq to federal crime requlations? When did the “fliqht” ever end, accordinq to federal crime requlations?
What you’re sayinq makes no sense.
It’s a nice try thouqh.
Unable.
Remember that word.
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.