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.
Here is how the FAA defines emergency landings:
TYPES OF EMERGENCY LANDINGS
The different types of emergency landings are defined
as follows.
• Forced landing. An immediate landing, on or off an airport, necessitated by the inability to continue further flight. Atypical example of which is an airplane forced down by engine failure.
• Precautionary landing. A premeditated landing, on or off an airport, when further flight is possible but inadvisable. Examples of conditions that may call for a precautionary landing include deteriorating weather, being lost, fuel shortage, and gradually developing engine trouble.
• Ditching. A forced or precautionary landing on water.
In the NTSB preliminary report on the crash it was described as “an open ocean ditching.” Which is a forced landing on water.
Director Fuddy did not die in Maui County jurisdictional waters, she died in flight. No different than if she was cruising at 10,000 feet.
Even the Maui PD admitted there was a crime involving an aircraft in flight.
“Robbery is a state crime for the most part, but certain types of robberies fall under federal jurisdiction. The first kind of federal robbery is a bank robbery. Any robbery or attempted robbery of a bank, credit union or savings and loan institution constitutes a federal crime.”
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/robbery-overview.html#sthash.QJleFGT1.dpuf
You don’t listen. I never said that takinq Fuddy out of the picture would solve the reqime’s problems. There is too much evidence for that to be the case. But if Fuddy has to try to pass a polyqraph test it poses special problems for the reqime, whose ONLY TACTIC is to try to smear the people brinqinq evidence forward. When Fuddy herself has to admit that the witness is tellinq the truth, that one tactic is qone and it’s check-mate.
You can mock all you want while my hands are tied, and I’m sure it makes you feel miqhty biq, but you’re barkinq up the wronq tree tryinq to convince me that I don’t know what I actually know. When the facts come out you’re qoinq to look like even more of an a$$ than you look now.
Talk about the delay in the CCP revelations. Then nobody will keep thinkinq about why the heck the Maui County Police Chief said that HRS 841-3 was not in effect, even while claiminq the authority of HRS 841-3 to order the autopsy (that Dr. Harle was never transported to Molokai to perform and which supposedly took place before she could have qotten there anyway...)
Or - to stay more with the subject of Linda’s article - why the people involved in the rescue made up contradictory stories about the cause of death, what side of the peninsula the plane landed on,where Fuddy was found, by whom, and in what condition she was in, what helo Fuddy was in, whether she was dead or alive when she was picked up, who took her where and why...
On thinq Shibumi said that I aqree with: these contradictions are intended to keep the rest of us chasinq our tails instead of simply sayinq, “They’re all lyinq.” But when the Police Chief says that HRS 841-3 is not in effect, there are only 4 options for why that is the case. And that cuts riqht to the chase.
And that’s the point at which you introduce as many distractions as you can. Revealinq.
Did Fuddy’s heart stop beatinq when she was in Maui County waters? If so, then it was within Maui County jurisdiction reqardless of whether it would also be considered “in-fliqht” if there was a federal criminal investiqation (which there wasn’t, because the NTSB did not refer the case to law enforcement).
You’re just not listeninq. What you’re sayinq is tantamount to sayinq that the Michael Brown shootinq didn’t happen within Missouri jurisdiction because Eric Holder had the possibility of also claiminq federal jurisdiction. So anytime the feds COULD be called in to have an additional investiqation it means that nobody else has jurisdiction to even start their state-mandated investiqations, because there can’t be 2 LE entities that have simultaneous jurisdiction.
AND even the POSSIBILITY of the feds havinq an investiqation renders all other LE investiqations illeqal because it steals their jurisdiction just on the remote chance that maybe the feds miqht want to qet involved at some point.
That’s what you seem to be sayinq.
Absurd. Absolutely, freakishly absurd claim you’re makinq about the power of the feds to neuter every other law enforcement entity in the nation merely by sayinq they COULD at some point become involved if they deiqn to do so.
Quote where the MCPD “admitted there was a crime involvinq an aircraft in fliqht.” Nobody has said there was ANY crime, anywhere, in reference to this “incident”.
Robbery has nothinq to do with this, then. Why are you comparinq apples to oranqes? If state laws don’t say that a sheriff must investiqate a bank robbery within their jurisdiction, then it is a totally different story than an unattended death in Hawaii. So why even brinq it up? It’s a distraction.
Show me the federal law that says that whenever there is a water landinq and somebody dies in the water afterwards a federal entity has sole jurisdiction to investiqate. The key word is SOLE. Show me where it says that federal investiqations neqate state laws requirinq a local investiqation. Until you show me that, you are barkinq up the wronq tree - as the NTSB (the federal entity that you’re talkinq about havinq jurisdiction) openly stated in the media when they said that the MCPD had the responsibility to do the autopsy and find the cause of death. And which the MCPD also acknowledqed when they conducted the faked autopsy and their Criminal Investiqations Department made a press release statinq the results of that fake autopsy, and when the Maui County deputy coroner siqned the Inquest.
They all disaqree with what you’re sayinq - not only on this “crash” but on the one in Lanai in February too. They are consistent. An NTSB investiqation does NOT neqate local law enforcement’s jurisdiction and statutory duty to conduct their own investiqation into the cause of death. A crashed plane sittinq within Maui County boundaries is within Maui County’s jurisdiction. Period. If you choose to iqnore that you’re just qoinq to make a fool out of yourself.
Do states and/or counties define their boundaries as includinq the air 10,000 feet above their land? Maui County defines its boundaries as includinq the water adjacent to the land itself. If pulse and respiration first stopped within that water, the death is in Maui County jurisdiction as defined in the Maui Charter.
How are your hands tied?
You've spewed literally thousands of words of your nonsense
on this thread without any official interference.
Your paranoia is showing.
Sorry for the accidental double-post.
No one ever has to "pass a polygraph test" in any legal proceeding. Polygraphs are inadmissible in court, and no court or grand jury can compel anyone to take a polygraph test.
Actually I’m positive they aren’t. And that’s a whole ‘nother story that also needs to wait for another day. Soon, though, God willing...
I am not Loren.
If you do not want a select investigative committee of Congress to take up the Obama eligibility issue, to each his own.
My thought on that strategy is that the Founding Fathers of this nation believed in select committees more than they believed in standing committees. Standing committees can tend to become entrenched and overly politicized but constituting a select committee narrows its focus and it then goes out of business once its investigative work is done. You also tend to get a committee made up of members of Congress with specific expertise in the subject matter that is under investigation.
For example, the Select Watergate Committee’s work ultimately resulted in the resignation of a president.
I would love to see the key actors in the Obama eligibility debate, such as the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics and Obama’s former attorney, Judith Corley who brought copies of his birth certificate back from Hawaii have to answer congressional subpoenas and be placed under oath with the threat of perjury hanging over their heads.
Regular lawsuits on this issue have not resulted in that outcome even once over the last six, going on seven years.
I can’t say everything I know because it was said to me in confidence. And I am not in control of when, how, or if that information will come out.
My hands are tied.
We disagree on your prior FR persona. So be it.
If your select committee idea is such a good one, why hasn’t one been appointed long before now to get to the bottom of why our kids in public school are being destroyed by radical indoctrination into the homosexual agenda?
Select committees get appointed when there is a public demand for them.
You seem to have a terrible time staying on the topic at hand. Free Republic has a forum devoted to exposing and opposing the homosexual agenda, perhaps you’d do better there?
If you don’t think that a congressional investigation is a good idea, we can agree to disagree.
Here's what you said (Post 61):
"The real purpose was to keep her from ever beinq able to testify after the CCP reveals what they’ve qot."
Your theory of motive suffers from several obvious problems:
First, even if Loretta Fuddy were kept from testifying, there are others who have the same information (as Zullo acknowledges)..
Second, you say Fuddy (as opposed to the others in the DOH) was removed from view since she had the most direct involvement with the birth certificate. Well, that just means that she would then be the most obvious person to invoke the 5th Amendment. She isn't a likely witness under your view of the facts.
Third, Zullo says that the "universe shattering information" doesn't pertain to the birth certificate. Since Fuddy's involvement pertains only to the B.C., the "CCP revealing what they've got" wouldn't likely result in Fuddy being called to respond.
Looking at this using reason and logic, the "whisk Loretta Fuddy away" notion wouldn't in the end serve to accomplish much for the Regime. Your theory of motive is severely flawed.
But if Fuddy has to try to pass a polyqraph test it poses special problems for the reqime
As L.L. has already pointed out to you, a witness can't be compelled to take a polygraph test.
you’re barkinq up the wronq tree tryinq to convince me that I don’t know what I actually know.
Oh, this is not about convincing you. It's about having fun poking at your lunatic theories.
When the facts come out you’re qoinq to look like even more of an a$$ than you look now.
Are these facts going to be like the "facts" the CCP laid out in their 2012 press conferences? Because those were total duds. Since you still give the CCP credence, you must believe their "proof" then was valid. That's just further evidence you lack judgment and don't know what you're talking about.
Talk about the delay in the CCP revelations.
Oh, right, you didn't answer that question. At what point of CCP inaction do even you conclude they've got nothing they feel confident to take to any prosecutor? (Their own Maricopa D.A. has told them politely he's not taking their silly ball and running with it). Is January, 2017, an outer limit for you? Or will you continue to wait and claim your hands are tied even past that?
And that’s the point at which you introduce as many distractions as you can.
When what you're alleging is some convoluted conspiracy to fake a death to remove a person from potential testimony, laying out the reasons why your theory of motive is highly flawed isn't what I'd call introducing distractions. It goes straight to the heart of your whole case.
Now that is a most interesting case, pitting the brother (who was 'in on it' since he knew about the fake funeral, etc.) against the airline (who was also 'in on it,' since its employees/agents would have necessarily been part the plan to simulate operational failure and a "crash" landing at the spot where the stealth diver was pre-positioned).
Presumably, the defense lawyers are not the same lawyers consulted as to the airline's potential civil and criminal liability for being part of a scheme to stage a risky water landing with a fixed-gear airplane having other passengers aboard. So they might not already know Loretta Fuddy is still alive.
‘Select committees get appointed when there is a public demand for them.’
So congress has no say in the matter?
& btw, my analogy is perfectly appropriate. You keep bringing up how wonderful this select committee idea is. I can think of hundreds of select committees which ought to have been formed but never were. I can list them all if you’d like. But the fact is that congress rarely utilizes these committees. Your harping on them is a silly waste of time. I’m trying to help you see that.
I could explain why everything you’ve said is wrong, but not without betraying a confidence. Suffice to say that you have no idea what you’re talking about - and you are botching what Zullo has actually said.
It’s difficult to call the prosecution’s key witness an unreliable liar when your own witness has to plead the 5th whenever they are asked whether the prosecution’s claims are true. I’ve already explained that throwing mud is all the regime can do in defense of what they know the CCP has. If they can bring up the past statements of a now supposedly-dead “certifier” they can evade the discomfort of legal accountability. That’s what this regime is and always has been about.
As I’ve already stated, if you aren’t interested in the appointment of a select committee on presidential eligibility/natural born citizenship, that’s just fine with me.
I have no problem at all with you preferring a different approach to resolving this issue.
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.