The kicker of it is that HRS 338-17.7 allows a new BC to be created if “law enforcement” (Eric Holder) says it is necessary for his safety. Now we know why there was the sudden big push to paint “birthers” as violent extremists - right when Abercrombie was realizing (and saying to his friend, Mike Evans) that there was no legally-valid BC for Obama but just something “actually written down, in the archives...” - and right before Neal Palafox was forced to resign as HDOH diretor and replaced by Fuddy who immediately said they would never allow anybody to see original BC’s or copies of original BC’s (and all of a sudden, once they didn’t have to worry about the originals ever being seen, we started seeing anomalous BC#’s on computerized COLB’s as well - for Stig Waidelich and Virginia Sunahara, and a badly-done forged BC# for Johanna Ah Nee)...
As of late January 2011 when Abercrombie spoke to Mike Evans, there was not a BC for Obama. Now Onaka has verified that the BC# on their file for Obama is the number on the WH BC - which could not have been on that document in 1961. So sometime between late January and April of 2011 the HDOH gave Obama a different BC# than what he was originally given. The legally-allowable reason to do that is if law enforcement has said it is necessary for “safety” - and in that case the fake BC that is created for “safety’s sake” will say whatever law enforcement (Eric Holder) says it needs to say.
So the HDOH has a fake document for Obama, for them to give to Obama so he can stay safe in hiding with a fake identity. The HDOH created that fake document for Obama; they had access to all those other BC’s to get the bits and pieces that they C&P’ed together, just like Eric Holder told them to do. But it doesn’t replace the real record in their files. When Onaka was asked to verify the real facts he couldn’t do it, because the HDOH still has to acknowledge the real BC, and the real BC isn’t legally valid either.
I’ve got a new post up on my blog, showing how the 4 anomalous BC#’s fit together. That’s at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/the-hdoh-has-juggled-bcs-for-at-least-4-1961-bcs/ . If Verna Lee told us the way they really numbered those BC’s in 1961 then Obama was almost certainly given Stig Waidelich’s BC#, Stig Waidelich was given the BC# for either Ray Piiohla Jr or Keith Min Thayoshi (if Thayoshi died as an infant), who was then given Virginia Sunahara’s BC#. Sunahara was given the real BC# for Johanna Ah Nee, and Ah Nee was given the BC# for an infant born in outlying Oahu in mid-July and died shortly thereafter.
So anyway, coming back to what Kansas is going to do. Hopefully they are going to request ALL the BC’s the HDOH has for Barack Hussein Obama II and not be satisfied until they are either shown both records or are allowed to audit the microfilms and computer transaction logs. Actually, hopefully both.
But you’re right; it would definitely take some stones. I’m praying for those guys’ stones.
“Ive got a new post up on my blog, showing how the 4 anomalous BC#s fit together.”
In your post you say the Stig was born at 4:47 p.m. but when his BC was shown on CNN it listed 8:49 p.m.
At the 3:10 mark.
Also I’m confused by the tables you use. Table 2-1 shows total births occurring in Hawaii as 17578. The table you use are based on residence not place of occurrence.
Table 2-2 is births by month by place of occurrence.
Residence is determined by the county of residence of the mother. But not all Hawaii residents had their babies in the county of their residence or even in Hawaii. Table 2-1 shows that for births that occurred in Hawaii, 70 were for non-resident (intracounty and interstate) and that 58 women with Hawaii residence gave birth outside of Hawaii. So the math looks like this:
Hawaii resident births = 17,508
Intracounty births = 50
Interstate births = 20
Total births in Hawaii = 17578
To get the total number of births to residents of Hawaii, take the number of births to non-Hawaii residents (20) and subtract that from the total (17578-20=17558) and add the total number of births to residents of Hawaii that occurred in other states (17558+58=17616).
In numbering the BCs, do they start each year at 1 and number them sequentially? If so the first child born in 1961 would have the number 151 61 00001 and the last child would be 151 61 17578.
If that is the case than the first child born in August would be 151 61 09943 (adding up the monthly totals January thru July) and the last child in August would be 151 61 11402.
Does that seem right to you?
Except for the part about "Just like Eric Holder told them to do", isn't that what I have been saying all along? :)