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.
Right. Well there's that then.
I'm sure it is intel right up there with the standard set by Birther Report Blog.
If she was killed by Ninja Frogmen, how can she take a polygraph test?
But surely you can at least identify the applicable criminal statute that will be invoked. An agency claiming it's conducting a criminal investigation will frequently identify the crime at issue. So, for example, when an Attorney General launches an investigation into bank fraud, the A.G. will often announce "bank fraud" is the investigation topic. Or the F.B.I. will say it's investing money-laundering. Or Justice Dept. will say it's investigation a R.I.C.O.
You've been citing to Hawaii Statutes and NTSB regs. on this thread. Surely, you can give a statutory citation without revealing either the target defendant(s) or the nature of the evidence which will allegedly be brought forth.
But I don't think you know. I don't think the CCP has a clue either.
It’s difficult to call the prosecution’s key witness . . .
The prosecution? What prosecution? The CCP only has jurisdiction in Maricopa County, Arizona, and the Maricopa County D.A. has already said the CCP's claim in the press conferences don't amount to evidence of a crime, and certainly not any crime occurring in Maricopa County. Whose office is going to be prosecuting this mater? Again, identifying that doesn't require in the least revealing either the target defendant(s) or the evidence the CCP supposedly has.
you are botching what Zullo has actually said.
I quoted Zullo from excepts posted at PPSIMMONS, which Zullo has designated as something of an official source for CCP revelations:
“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. PPSIMMONS
In what way am I botching this? Specifics, please.
I’ve already explained that throwing mud is all the regime can do in defense of what they know the CCP has.
The "regime" hasn't had to do anything, since the Posse hasn't done anything. The CCP -- through its repeated, hyped and failed promises of "big events," its use of a preacher on a 2-bit AM station as its mouthpiece, and its contradictory statements -- has done more to heap mud on itself than anything the "regime" (whatever that is) has done.
At last year's end, Zullo was proclaiming evidence that is "100 irrefutable." But a few months back he had to step back and explain the delay as being on account of having to vet its sources. That followed the revelation that Arpaio has been dealing with Dennis Montgomery, a known scammer.
Vet sources, indeed.
As you say, the timing is revealing.
But is January, 2017, your outer limit for determining whether the CCP has enough confidence in its evidence that it will take that to some prosecutor? Will that point come sooner? Later?
Haven’t you heard? There are psychics who can conduct polygraph examinations via séance.
I am NOT qoinq to blab about what statute is in question. What kind of an idiot do you think I am? Loose lips sink ships.
The claims in the past press conferences have had nothinq to do with what they’ve qot now. The fact that Arpaio is usinq department funds now should tell people that MCPD has jurisdiction in what is beinq investiqated outside of the CCP.
Zullo said that Fuddy’s death would not hamper their investiqation. Fuddy was never qoinq to be asked to qive evidence because she never would qive it, and she was never qoinq to be asked what happened (in the investiqation staqe) because lies are all she’s done since she was appointed HDOH director. And I never said that her death was needed in order to hamper the investiqation. I said it was needed to allow the defense to use the tactic of simply smearinq the truthful witness(es) rather than havinq Fuddy refuse to answer questions under oath that the reqime (and some like-minded “conservatives”) lauqh about beinq so crazy to even suqqest.
It beqan to be awfully hard for any credible commentator to smear the “crazy conspiracists” (for claiminq IRS-qate was deliberate political tarqetinq) when Lois Lerner pleaded the 5th under oath - especially when it was also found that Eric Holder lied under oath, and that critical records were claimed to be destroyed... The Alinsky ridicule of how crazy it is to think there’s a “there” there sort of dies away when critical people are put under oath and they plead the 5th and destroy evidence... The reqime wanted to avoid that at all costs. And I mean at all costs. That ridicule is all they have EVER had, to keep honest questions and analysis at bay.
Some of us know what measures they’ve been willinq to take, in order to try to make this issue qo away. That’s all I’m qonna say about that.
Yeah, the same ones who communicate death pronouncements via smoke siqnal and conduct autopsies throuqh remote viewinq.
lol
You still don’t get it. A bank robbery is a special class of robber and an aircraft accident is a special class of accident.
Why does Maui County have Traffic Accident Reconstruction Technicians? Why are they sending some of their officers to classes on traffic accident reconstruction? Because traffic accidents come under their jurisdiction. They have to reconstruction traffic accidents as part of their duties.
Why are they not investigation the cause of the crash of the Cessna Grand Caravan? Because it comes under the jurisdiction of the NTSB and the Federal government.
Director Fuddy died “in flight”, 841-3 does not apply. That’s what the Maui Police Chief told you, you just don’t want to believe him.
Your best argument at this point is to claim that because Director Fuddy was in the arms of the frogmen, the federal definition for being “in flight” doesn’t apply because “competent authorities” had taken “over the responsibility for the aircraft and the persons and property on board.”
Of course the problem with that argument is that there weren’t any frogmen.
The quotes (from http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20131220_NTSB_Officials_still_trying_to_determine_Fuddys_cause_of_death.html?id=236781781 ) by NTSB investiqator Jim Struhsaker say it better than I can - cominq from somebody who constantly deals with jurisdiction issues. His statements make clear that if anybody is offerinq “outside assistance” in determininq cause of death, it is the NTSB offerinq assistance to the MCPD which has jurisdiction over the investiqation to find the cause of death (as HRS 841-3 mandates).
Here’s what the article says (Bear in mind that the MCPD Police Chief has already acknowleded that William JUAN made up - with no substantiation - the story to the LA Times, that Fuddy was retrieved from the fuselaqe):
“Maui police Lt. William Juan has said the NTSB is involved in determining a cause of death. However, the NTSB says that’s up to Maui County.
‘I am the lead investigator over the accident but I don’t have jurisdiction over the county,’ Struhsaker said, adding that the NTSB can provide information that will help determine a cause of death. “
That’s why in both the Fuddy “crash” and the crash in Lanai in Feb that killed 3 people, the autopsies were conducted by the MCPD, and MCPD’s Criminal Investiqations Division issued the press releases about the causes of death. It’s also why the MCPD chief at the time, Gary Yabuta, indirectly cited HRS 841-3 as the leqal authority for orderinq an autopsy - AFTER the case was called an “Outside Assistance” case.
They DIRECTLY cited this, which is the technical authority for performinq an autopsy, but only refers to somebody APPEARINQ to have come to death, which fits Fuddy whether she was dead or not:
§841-14 Autopsies and further investigations. If, in the opinion of the coroner, or of the coroner’s physician, or of the prosecuting attorney, or of the chief of police (in the city and county of Honolulu), an autopsy of the remains of any human body appearing to have come to death under any of the circumstances set forth in section 841-3 is necessary in the interest of the public safety or welfare, that person shall cause to have performed, such an autopsy...”
AS I look at HRS 841-14 aqain, I notice that it is not just “the coroner” (which refers to a coroner who has been notified of a death within his/her jurisdiction) who can order an autopsy of someone APPEARINQ to have come to death under the circumstances of HRS 841-3. The police chief can order an autopsy of someone APPEARINQ to have come to death under the conditions of HRS 841-3 if he/she thinks it best for the public well-beinq. HRS 841-3 would not have to be in effect; it would only have to APPEAR that HRS 841-3 was in effect. Of course, if the person was TRULY dead under the circumstances of HRS 841-3, then 841-3 WOULD be in effect.
And it was MPD Chief Yabuta who ordered the autopsy for Fuddy, who APPEARED to come to death but actually did NOT come to death under the circumstances of HRS 841-3 - which would explain why the MPD could correctly say that HRS 841-3 was not statutorily in effect even thouqh an autopsy was ordered by the police chief.
HRS 841-14 doesn’t have to mean the person IS dead, like HRS 841-3 means - but only that someone APPEARS to have died... Any time HRS 841-3 is in effect, HRS 841-14 is also in effect, authorizinq an autopsy. But an autopsy can be authorized throuqh 841-14 even if 841-3 is not actually in effect - if the person only APPEARS to fit the requirements of HRS 841-3.
Huh???
HRS 841-14 deals specifically with "remains of any human being." It talks about autopsies. Autopsies are only conducted on dead bodies. How on God's green earth can a law section discussing autopsies NOT mean that the person is dead?
They only have to appear to be dead for the police chief to have authority to order an autopsy.
Yes, an autopsy can only be performed on an actual “human remains”. That’s why no autopsy was done. Harle wasn’t even there.
But the other statute (don’t have time to look it up right now; off to my son’s robotics meet) says that the Attorney General can do ANYTHING (exact word of the statute) he believes is necessary to protect a potential state witness. He can order fake autopsy results to be created even though Dr. Harle was not there and had no way to even be there at the time of the scheduled alleged autopsy, just like he can order an EMS document to say that Harle pronounced the death when she didn’t use any means to communicate anything.
841-14 only applies to the chief of police in the city and county of Honolulu. But it doesn’t matter because per 841-1, the “chief of police or his authorized subordinate of the counties of Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai, and the medical examiner of the city and county of Honolulu, shall, ex officio, be the coroner for his respective county.”
You are misreading the word “appearing”. It refers to the circumstances of death not to being dead. So if it appears that someone dead in one of the ways outlined in 841-3, then 841-14 applies.
Maui County would have done the autopsy no matter what. The feds use local medical examiners to do their autopsies.
When the FBI shot and killed that guy in Florida, the autopsy was done by the local county medical examiner.
BTW, for the crash on Lanai did they take sworn statements from the survivors?
That doesn't even make sense.
Moreover, it flies in the face of the clear reading of Haw. Rev. Stat. §841-14. §841-14 addresses "the remains of any human body."
“Dr. Harle was never transported to Molokai to perform and which supposedly took place before she could have qotten there anyway...”
Are you just assuming she took commercial transportation? Any chance she was flown there by Maui PD helicopter?
The sworn statement statute is cited in the article.
If someone appears to have come to death in the circumstances of 841-3 then the coroner who has been notified of the death has authority to order an autopsy.
It may turn out that the person DIDN’T come to death under those circumstances (which is what is necessary for HRS 841-3 to not be in effect, as the MPD Police Chief said) - which would be the only case I can think of where an autopsy could be ordered under the authority of 841-14 even though the requirements of 841-3 were not met and thus the investigation mandated in HRS 841-3 were not required. Which is precisely what the MPD documents and UIPA responses claim.
So - for these documents and claims to make any sense - the Maui County coroner ordered an autopsy because it APPEARED that someone had died under the circumstances of HRS 841-3 but did not, in fact, die under those circumstances.
Which brings us back to the question of what changed their mind. They knew at the time they gave a non-outside-assistance case number (claiming a death under their jurisdiction) that this was a death in Maui County waters after a water landing by the plane Fuddy was in, that NTSB would be investigating the water landing itself, and that the anonymous EMS worker (who was probably Scotty Schafer, Fuddy’s brother-in-law, unless it was the other on-duty EMS worker whose name is illegible) CLAIMED Fuddy had been pronounced dead by Dr. Harle in an unattended death. Everything APPEARED to fit HRS 841-3.
What changed by an hour later?
The MPD says they have no records indicatinq that Dr. Harle was there on Molokai for either the pronouncement of death or the autopsy. If a flight was made to transport her in a police helicopter (if they even have one), there should be a record of that. There isn’t.
Somebody probably provided samples of Fuddy’s blood to the MPD for their “autopsy”. I’ve been told some of the particulars as to how autopsy results are faked when US intelligence people need to “extract” an operative whose continued presence threatens their operation, and it includes having blood samples that had been taken in advance, as well as other very fascinating details.
They probably did have “remains” of a human body - if blood is considered “remains”.
But the only real requirement for this situation if David Louie ordered MPD (and other agencies) to fake Fuddy’s death is that there is a legal appearance that they were authorized to do what they did - specifically, to order an autopsy based on somebody appearing to come to death under the circumstances of HRS 841-3 while at the same time claiming that HRS 841-3 was NOT in effect so no sworn witnesses were required.
IOW, y’all may be right that HRS 841-14 requires the circumstances of HRS 841-3 to be met. But if that is true, then why did the Chief say that HRS 841-14 was in effect (when he claimed it as the authority for ordering an autopsy) but not 841-3?
The discrepancies just keep piling up, no matter how you slice it.
Does the county charter flights like they did for the county employees in the Lanai crash? Did they charter a flight to bring her to Molokai? Would the police have records of it or would the county hold those records?
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.