Skip to comments.Obama lawyer warned against certifying eligibility
Posted on 09/03/2012 7:39:43 PM PDT by tsowellfan
click here to read article
Ok, I found this (#21) where you talk about the girl and the guy’s numbers.
So are you saying that the DOH is faking the numbers on people’s BCs but when it came time to verify the info on Obmaa’s BC they wouldn’t do it? Why not?
And aren’t the numbers all sequential? So the first baby born in a year gets 00001 and if there are 20,000 babies born that year, the last baby born gets 20000 as their number? If you are manipulating the numbers, you have to take it from one BC and give it to another BC.
When the Factcheck photos were taken (right before the last of the 3 security breaches on Obama’s passport file) they didn’t have to have a number that matched Obama’s record at the HDOH; all they needed was a number that they knew nobody was going to reveal as belonging to somebody else. The HDOH probably wasn’t involved in any fraud at that point. But immediately when asked about the BC# being blacked out on the Fight the Smears site, HDOH Communications Director JANICE OKUBO began the cover-up for Obama, saying that their whole system could be hacked if somebody knew a BC#. Laughable on its face, because anybody with a HI BC would be able to hack their system if that was true. lol. But that was the start of the HDOH cover-up, and Okubo has been central to that effort ever since.
By mid-2010 they had started messing with the actual BC#’s at the HDOH - because that is when I requested a non-certified COLB for Virginia Sunahara and was told that there was no record for her - even though her name is listed on what they call their 1960-64 birth index.
About the time that Duncan Sunahara started asking for his sister’s documentation, the HDOH made their law-defying shift to saying that they wouldn’t allow anybody to see original records. And once they had illegally changed their policy to disallow the original records to be seen, they were free to monkey around with the computerized records - which are very easy to switch around temporarily and then switch back, unlike paper records and microfilms which show up tampering. Once they didn’t have to worry about being forced to disclose original documents, they were able to mess with the records of people who were either dead or committed to helping cover Obama’s fraud.
That is when anomalous BC#’s started showing up from the HDOH. Okubo had said that the BC’s were numbered at the HDOH on the “date filed”, and that revealed the problems with Obama’s “date filed”/BC# combination. So they had to try to make it appear that BC#’s were issued randomly.
Now the local registrar from 1961 has described the way they numbered the BC’s, and a funny thing happens: when the anomalous BC#’s are analyzed according to that numbering method the profiles (birth location and approximate dates) of the people the BC’s REALLY belonged to in 1961 shows up clearly. The number Obama has matches exactly where Stig Waidelich’s BC# should be. Stig Waidelich’s BC# matches exactly where a specific dead infant’s BC# should be... And you can follow the trail from there - including three dead infants and 2 live people who appear to be willing accomplices.
If/when the computer transaction logs, paper records, and microfilms are audited, the world is going to get an eye-full.
The problem for the HDOH is that the statute that allows them to create a new, fraudulent BC for somebody based on law enforcement claiming it is necessary to protect the person... requires them to use a new BC number, but the genuine numbers for that time period are already taken by real people. The fraudulent BC that is created doesn’t replace the real BC in a legal sense; the fraudulent BC is simply intended for the person to be able to use in superficial settings so they appear to be somebody else and can live in hiding. When they apply for a job or welfare, for instance, they can show ID as somebody else and stay under the radar while they are in hiding for their safety. Sort of like fake ID for CIA agents. Those fake ID’s don’t change the real ID information for anybody, they just allow them to assume a false identity for a while. If you had the real name of the agent and got the real records for them, the genuine information would still be there.
In a very real sense there could be 2 records for Obama - the genuine one which is non-valid, and the fake new one that says whatever Eric Holder told the HDOH to put on it - and whose claims would be disproven in a court of law; it does not REPLACE the genuine record, which is still legally binding for the person.
Suppose that this is what really happened with Obama’s records. When Onaka verifies that certain information is on “the original record on file”, which record is he talking about? As you’ve pointed out elsewhere, if Onaka has to use whatever BC matches the claims submitted for verification, he probably used the fake one. But he never said that any of the claims were true - which is important because neither BC would withstand evidentiary scrutiny in a court of law, and Onaka knows it.
Was Obama’s genuine BC signed in 1961? Well....if so, it doesn’t make sense that the signatures and the dates on the WH BC are what caused there to be so many layers. It took two different layers to get Stanley Ann’s name on that image, and it actually looks on the whited-out layer as if there are two b’s in the signature of “Obama”, like you’re seeing double because there are two loops, one shadowing the other. As if they changed the placement of that particular C&P.
Another thing that’s interesting when you look at the layers: It looks like there is a typed X in the “other” (to indicate that the signature was by somebody other than a parent, which is the other box that can be checked there) - an x which is partially hidden by the doctor’s rogue/frantic marking on the box below.
All we can do is speculate. But Onaka has confirmed that he cannot verify Obama’s birth facts as true even though they are claimed on at least one record they have for him.