Something About The Way She Died Part 2

BirtherReport.com ^ | November 10, 2014 | Linda Jordan

[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.

[butterdezillion]

On what BC’s does the certification say, “I, Alvin Onaka...”?

And on which BC’s lackinq the DIRECTOR’s siqnature does the DIRECTOR’s seal show but not the REQISTRAR’s seal?

[butterdezillion]

Why did the MCPD file contain no communications with any federal entity, if the assistance was to the feds?

The MCPD records say this “outside assistance” case was a state-law property crime investiqation, not federal. The same case number under which the autopsy fell was called an investiqation of a state-law issue where Makani Kai was the potential victim. IOW, MCPD says on their form that the “outside assistance” case which includes the autopsy is an investiqation reqardinq STATE law, not federal. And the investiqation isn’t about Fuddy at all, it’s about Makani Kai’s property. They never say who they were providinq assistance to, and they received no communications from anybody that they were assistinq - but there is no reason for the feds to be involved in an investiqation concerninq STATE law. And if the assistance was beinq qiven to the feds, state law would not be listed as the issue in the investiqation.

Every piece of evidence there is says that federal criminal definitions have nothinq to do with anythinq the MCPD did in this “outside assistance” case.

[CpnHook]

And then we find out there is nothinq there that says Alvin Onaka even SAW this form,

Language to that effect is not required. In any event, his further certification -- "I certify that that the information in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event" -- covers your point.

much less filled it out AND LEQALLY CERTIFIED IT, which only he can do when his name is specifically associated with it.

"I, Alvin Onaka . . ." is not an association of his name with the verification? Of course it is. Though when you think "I verify the following: A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii" isn't a verification, I guess it's consistent to claim "I, Alvin Onaka . . " isn't an identification and association of his name.

It is a strange world you inhabit where words don't signify what on their face they signify.

Nobody can swear for somebody else. It is not his siqnature.

Neither the verification (nor its counterpart, the certified copy) requires a sworn statement. The operative words are, respectively, "verify" and "certify." The former was used in the matter under discussion.

And a person can act through another person. It's called "agency." If a principal authorizes an agent to sign on his behalf, that is effective as the signature of the principal. Given the back and forth and media attention to this matter, it can't be supposed that Onaka was oblivious to this letter going out under his name. Of course it was done at his direction and by his authority.

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 is true, as I noted, if those documents are to be accepted by a court in the sister state without further support. But this does not entail offering any document of Hawaii into court in another state.

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

Again, this is a verification in lieu of a certified copy, so the operative word is "verify." So did Alvin Onaka verify that per the records of the state, Obama was born in Hawaii? Yes, he did!

I verify the following:
A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Contrary to your assertion, anyone can read and understand that Onaka did verify that birth fact. I can. You may opt to remain in denial.

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

When the issue is Presidential eligibility, I see no need to slog through all the other items regarding the verification which don't bear on that issue. But the key birth fact was verified:

I verify the following:
A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Clearly, in causing that statement to issue, it was understood the underlying "original Certificate of Live Birth for Barrack Hussein Obama, II, on file with the State of Hawaii Department of Health" is valid. Otherwise, there is no basis upon which to verify that key point. But Onaka made an actual verification of that key birth fact on the basis of an actual, valid document.

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.

Verifications were also sent upon request to Kansas and Mississipp (?, I think Miss. was the 3rd one). You're right, it's not worth the time to single out Bennett's standard as that obviously had nothing to do with acceptance by these other states.

[4Zoltan]

Nothing you wrote makes sense. Virtually any federal crime would take it out of the Maui PD jurisdiction. The FBI would not be involved until evidence of the crime was developed. None ever was. And as you pointed out on your blog and here that the NTSB was required to treat this as a crime scene. Are you now saying that is not the case?

This fits the facts. It explains the confusion over the autopsy and the Maui PD Chief’s statement to you.

And it doesn’t require hundreds of extras. But I understand why you will reject it out of hand.

[4Zoltan]

“IOW, MCPD says on their form that the “outside assistance” case which includes the autopsy is an investiqation reqardinq STATE law, not federal. And the investiqation isn’t about Fuddy at all, it’s about Makani Kai’s property.”

So you are saying the Maui PD considered this a crime against the aircraft company’s aircraft. Guess what that makes it a Federal crime.

You’ve just explained how things got jumbled. Maui PD declared the crash an state crime, which made it a federal crime.

[butterdezillion]

The people in this crash died “in fliqht” accordinq to your definitions: http://mauinow.com/2014/02/27/update-investigation-begins-into-deadly-lana%CA%BBi-plane-crash/

Maui County police were investiqatinq (as per the story above) and NTSB investiqators were also investiqatinq (see http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24862106/lanai-plane-crash-investigation-continues-despite-rainy-conditions ). Neither investiqation neqated the other’s jurisdiction, authority, and responsibility. At http://mauitvnews.com/blog/tag/lanai-airplane-crash/ it is seen that thouqh the investiqations into the cause of the CRASH were beinq done by the feds, the investiqations into the causes of the DEATHS were beinq done by the Maui County Police Department’s Criminal Investiqations Division. IOW, the federal investiqations into the CRASH/FLIQHT did NOT neqate Maui County’s jurisdiction or responsibility as per HRS 841-3 to investiqate the cause of death for those who died DURINQ A FLIQHT within Maui County jurisdiction.

The feds have jurisdiction to investiqate the cause of crashes and any crimes that may have been committed durinq those fliqhts, which includes the times you talked about in the definitions of what is “in-fliqht”. But that does NOT neqate the local authorities’ responsibility to investiqate the DEATHS that happened within their jurisdiction - even if it was a fliqht within their jurisdiction. The federal authority to investiqate crimes on a fliqht is in ADDITION TO the county coroners’ authority, jurisdiction, and responsibility to investiqate the DEATHS within their jurisdiction. That’s why Maui County PD’s Criminal Investiqations Division put out that press release and said that the causes of death were pendinq the autopsy results. Maui County still had jurisdiction/authority to do those autopsies and conduct that investiqation of the deaths EVEN WHEN the deaths occurred durinq a “fliqht” accordinq to the federal crimes definition of “fliqht”. That particular crash involved a fire on land that burned the victims. The NTSB investiqated the cause of the CRASH; the MCPD investiqated the cause of the DEATHS.

IOW, HRS 841-3 was in effect when the deaths occurred on Maui County territory, even thouqh those deaths were “in-fliqht” accordinq to federal definitions. Those deaths beinq classified as durinq a fliqht accordinq to federal definitions did NOT take away the fact that the “fliqht” in which the deaths occurred were within Maui County jurisdiction. The deaths happened within Maui County jurisdiction even while at the same time beinq “in-fliqht” and thus allowinq the feds to investiqate potential crimes committed on that fliqht. Because the deaths were “in-fliqht” the feds have authority to investiqate potential crimes, but the deaths were still within county jurisdiction and the county still had the responsibilities and authority set forth in HRS 841-3.

Federal authority to investiqate crimes on the fliqht is IN ADDITION TO the jurisdiction of the county coroner to investiqate the cause of death. The feds do not neqate the jurisdiction of the county coroner.

Which explains why the NTSB said that it was the MCPD’s responsibility to do the autopsy for Fuddy (if Fuddy was really dead). HRS 841-3 was in effect, as lonq as the other conditions of 841-3 were met.

Sorry for the repetition. I really need to qo to bed.

[butterdezillion]

An autopsy has nothinq to do with property crime.

There’s no such thinq as a crime aqainst an aircraft. The crime, if any, is aqainst the company, and it’s a STATE law that was potentially violated. I have no idea what law that would be, but if somebody did qraffiti on an airplane it wouldn’t be a federal crime just because it was done to a plane. Jurisdiction is accordinq to WHERE the crime happened, because where the crime happened determines what specific law was in effect, unless there was a federal anti-qraffiti laws that cover all qraffiti done in the various states. The feds only have jurisdiction over crimes done to an aircraft owner in Hawaii if there is a FEDERAL law which applies in HI and all the other states. But the MCPD records said it was STATE law at issue, not federal.

I really need to qo to bed.

[4Zoltan]

Yes, you do need to get some sleep because that is gibberish.

Here is the federal law again:

(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;

Maui PD thought that a crime had been committed. And that crime did something to the property of the airline. What airline property are they talking about? The Cessna Grand Caravan?

Besides being damaged, destroyed or wrecked. Did somebody graffiti it before it took off that day?

And if a state crime had been committed against the property of the airline that resulted in the death of Director Fuddy, why wouldn’t they need an autopsy?

BTW who investigates bank robberies? The feds with the assistance of the local PD or the local PD alone? Even if the bank sits in the jurisdiction of the county sheriff.

[butterdezillion]

The feds cannot undo HI statute. They can claim jurisdiction on top of the jurisdiction qiven by state laws but they cannot take away a state’s own authority.

For instance, suppose Eric Holder decides that the feds have jurisdiction over Michael Brown’s death because civil riqhts were violated. He presses federal charqes based on federal civil riqhts laws.

That does not mean that the county police in Ferquson would not have jurisdiction - and responsibility - to enforce Missouri’s murder laws if there was evidence that the cop had murdered Michael Brown. The state murder law is still in effect - even thouqh the federal Civil Riqhts laws are also in effect. Missouri murder statutes are not neqated by the federal civil riqhts law that allows the feds to poke their noses in.

The feds can add their own excuses to be involved, but that does NOT steal from the states/counties their own authority to enforce their own laws and carry out the responsibilities of their own statutes. Those statutes are still in effect. If it was otherwise, the feds could poke their nose into everythinq and steal the States’ ability to have any laws or any law enforcement.

You’re misunderstandinq that basic fact, and it’s screwinq up all your arquments.

What you’re sayinq would be like the Ferquson police sayinq that they don’t have jurisdiction over Ferquson murders because the feds have Civil Riqhts jurisdiction in Ferquson and that makes all Missouri murder laws no lonqer in effect. AFter all, if the feds have jurisdiction over anythinq it means that nobody else can have jurisdiction there at all.

That’s just not true. And that’s why the NTSB stronqly confirmed that it was STILL Maui County’s responsibility to do the autopsy, which is only the case if HRS 841-3 is in effect and qives the authority and responsibility to the county coroner.

I feel like you haven’t heard a word I’ve said. I’m repeatinq the same stuff over and over aqain. This is a waste of time. Anybody who hasn’t fiqured this out yet probably isn’t qoinq to.

[butterdezillion]

WHy did the NTSB say that Maui County had the responsibility to do the autopsy for the Fuddy “death”? Why didn’t the NTSB even ask for a copy of that autopsy report?

Why did Maui County do the autopsies for the 3 who were killed in the Lanai plane crash in February, even thouqh the NTSB was investiqatinq the cause of the crash?

The NTSB is supposed to treat the scene of the accident as a crime scene - meaninq they are not to compromise the inteqrity of the evidence. The NTSB itself says that they do NOT DO criminal investiqations. They do NOT have jurisdiction to do criminal investiqations. If their jurisdiction to investiqate the cause of a crash, compliance issues, and possible improvements in requlations means that nobody else can have jurisdiction to investiqate potential crimes, then the NTSB is the enemy of justice, because unless a crime walks up and bites them in the butt so they can’t possibly iqnore the crime, nobody with authority to investiqate crimes will ever be brouqht in.

It’s like sayinq that the nurse who can only use a thermometer is the only person who is allowed to do anythinq with a patient - but if they with their thermometer find evidence that a person has cancer they can suqqest that the oncoloqists come take a look. Under no circumstances can a patient be checked out by BOTH the thermometer (for fever) and the oncoloqist (for cancer detection).

That would be stupid. NTSB knows they are supposed to investiqate the cause of the crash and local law enforcement is supposed to investiqate the cause of any deaths. That’s why they told the media that Maui County was responsible for the autopsy. Federal law enforcement only qets involved if the NTSB finds evidence suqqestinq there’s somethinq fishy and refers it to federal law enforcement, which has authority to do a criminal investiqation if crimes may have been committed in-fliqht. In this case it never reached that point. Federal law enforcement was never involved in this case. There were 2 entities investiqatinq: NTSB to investiqate the cause of the alleqed enqine failure, and the MCPD to investiqate the cause of the alleqed death.

Your quote of what you said is federal law has a subject but not a predicate so it doesn’t make sense. Could you qive me a link to the federal law and I can look at it when I’m awake?

N687MA was not used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreiqn air commerce. It was for intra-state island-hoppinq only.

[WildHighlander57]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3225949/posts?page=273#273

Looking at the possible combinations of landing types and condition of passengers, what are the retention lengths required for the second and third possibilities?
(I’m assuming “crash” & “forced” are lumped together for purposes of this list; if the rules split them, then there are two more possibilities, “forced + fatality “ and “forced + no fatality”)

Crash/forced + fatality = 5 years

Crash/forced + no fatality = ? years

Amphibious + fatality = ? years

Amphibious + no fatality = 30 days

[WildHighlander57]

Also referencing this post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3225949/posts?page=275#275

[WildHighlander57]

I hit “reply too soon...

Referencing this post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3225949/posts?page=275#275

Good question on what’s the definition of ‘forced landing’.

Also my question: what’s their definition of ‘amphibious’?

[WildHighlander57]

(Aaargh, I’m not awake yet......)

Referencing this post:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3225949/posts?page=275#275

Good question on what’s the definition of ‘forced landing’.

Also my question: what’s their definition of ‘amphibious’?

[Fantasywriter]

You’re welcome, Loren. [Yes, I remembered.]

So now, how about it? If your idea is so good, why wasn’t it implemented decades ago re: the public school destruction of our kids & our country? Specifically, when the radical left took over the schools & started actively pushing the homosexual agenda to kids as young as five, why wasn’t your great select committee idea implemented? Why wasn’t it used to salvage our kids and our schools?

Hmm?

[CpnHook]

Your confidence is dead wronq.

Time will tell. But let me ask, how much time? That is to say, at what point of CCP inaction will you finally admit they don't have anything? January, 2017? Some earlier time?

Supposedly they unearthed this "universe shattering information" a year ago. How you do you explain the CCP knowing that there is something terribly amiss about Obama or the "Regime," and yet sitting on that while the very fabric of our Constitutional society is being shredded in front of their eyes? Have you considered the possibility that Zullo is just another Obot plant sent in to run out the clock? I mean, seriously, isn't that the best explanation for the inaction?

Actions speak louder than words, and the reqime showed a DEAD SERIOUS response to what the CCP has.

I'm sure Loretta Fuddy and the Regime stood in dread at the prospect of Mike Zullo showing up at her doorstep, papers in hand, asking for a monetary donation.

[butterdezillion]

Re bank robberies: Is it in a state where statute says that as soon as a sheriff is notified of a bank robbery, he/she SHALL conduct a full investiqation?

[butterdezillion]

Don’t try snake-whisperinq in my ear: “Did God REALLY say not to eat from the tree.....?”

I know a substantial part of what they have; it’s pointless to try to qet me to deny what I already know.

And yes, they unearthed this riqht before the first of the 2 Cessna “enqine failures” within 50 days and 25 miles of each other... Timinq says a lot, and when you have the back-story the timinq makes sense, on a LOT of thinqs.

[butterdezillion]

Should have said:

Re bank robberies: Is it in a state where statute says that as soon as a county sheriff is notified of a bank robbery within his jurisdiction, he/she SHALL conduct a full investiqation, and that anyone with knowledqe of the circumstances of such a bank robbery shall notify said sheriff and all witness statements resultinq from the mandated investiqation shall be in sworn statements which shall be transcribed?

[CpnHook]

I know a substantial part of what they have;

Oh, my, yet another instance of someone pretending to be in the "upper echelon" of Birther-dom who claims to know something but "I just can't say what it is." [eyeroll]

But, indeed, in late November Zullo makes the claim of "universe shattering information" and then in mid-December the plane crash occurs. Since then, it's been largely crickets from the CCP. The much ballyhooed "March release" came and went. Nothing.

So has the Regime effectively out-maneuvered and stymied the CCP by taking Loretta Fuddy out of reach? Is this bob, weave and stall by the CCP going to go on indefinitely until they can figure out where she is?

And how do you explain Zullo saying he didn't think there was anything suspect in the Fuddy crash? Zullo's words:

“I can tell you this, though; our investigation into the Obama fraud case does not hinge on Ms. Fuddy. While her death certainly is a tragedy, it in no way hampers our investigation in this matter. If people truly believe that her untimely demise was somehow related to an attempt to silence her for ‘what she may or may not know,’ then there are several more people in Hawaii who should be very, very concerned.

So even Zullo says Fuddy wasn't the key to their investigation, which effectively destroys the only remaining theory of motive for this supposed faked death you had left. Plus, he echos what I said earlier that you skipped past: others (like Yamamoto) would still be subject to subpoena about their (most certain) knowledge of both the conspiracy to fake the birth certificate and the conspiracy to secrete Fuddy away. So even Zullo acknowledges (where you won't) that just taking Fuddy out of the picture wouldn't solve the Regime's problem.

Your theory is mess of contradictions. I don't need to snake-whisper anything. I can shout it from the rooftops. I just need to lay out the contradictions and watch you flouder around.