SHARE THIS WITH ANY OBOTS YOU KNOW...

Virginia Sunahara and HDOH Fraud
BUTTERDEZILLIONS BLOG 

1. Why the birth index had to be altered: only one person can have a BC# at a time.
A birth is a unique event that doesn’t happen twice to the same person (like marriage, for instance). So
every birth certificate is supposed to represent one real person. That person’s name may change (after
an adoption or name change, for instance) but that BC# represents a real person that was born, like a
vehicle identification number represents an exact vehicle, regardless of what paint or license plate
changes it undergoes. That BC# is the very identity of the person.

Two people might have the same name but they cannot have the same BC#. Only one name can be used
for a BC# at a time. When somebody is adopted they are given a new birth certificate that shows a
different name and different parents, to reflect the new LEGAL relationships. Everything else about the
birth certificate is the same, including the BC#. But the old BC with the old name and parents is
invalidated and only the new BC is legally valid. That BC# has to be filed under the new name. When an
adoption is set aside the old, original BC becomes valid again and the adoptive BC is invalidated.
So there is a way for names to be changed for a particular BC#, but only one of those names can be
legally valid at a time. In the Electronic Verification of Vital Events (EVVE) System (in which HI
participates) the way a record is marked as non-valid is by a void flag. If it’s clicked the record is nonvalid;
otherwise the default is for a valid record. When an adoption takes place they create a new record
with the same BC# as the old one and then click the void flag for the old one. To set aside an adoption,
they just take the void flag off of the original name and make the adoptive name void. Within the
computer system it only takes a click by the right worker to get rid of one name and put a different one
in its place.

But only one of those names using that BC# can be valid at once, since only one baby was born under
that number. And if you print out a list of valid names (such as a birth index) only one of those names
will be on the list. So if you want to steal somebody’s BC# in the computer database you have to fudge
things to get both the real person AND the BC# thief on the list.

The Hawaii DOH changed their 1960-64 birth index so that it would include legally non-valid names. We
know this because they have both the adoptive and birth names for 2 guys, even though the birth
names are legally non-valid. So the altered birth index allows for both a real person and a BC# thief to
show up in the birth index. But only one at a time could show up as valid in the database.
2. How we know there was a BC# thief in the database: Because Virginia Sunahara’s name was in
the birth index but not the database.

Virginia Sunahara’s name is in the 1960-64 birth index. We know they have a birth record for her
because her COLB has been disclosed to her brother. We know her COLB is for a real person because she
is buried in Mililani Cemetery. But when I requested a non-certified COLB for either Virginia or Tomiyo
Sunahara (as the HDOH Administrative Rules allow any person to receive) I received an official response
saying that there were no records for her.

Normally requests associated with Obama were sent to Janice Okubo and she always gave the standard
(BS) answer that I was not authorized to receive a non-certified COLB, death certificate, or whatever I
was asking for. That’s why it surprised me when I got the response saying that there were no records
responsive to my request for Virginia’s non-certified COLB.

Later on, I called the HDOH office to find out what had happened to my money order and request for
the 1961 birth index the HDOH had told me I could get for $98.75. The secretary couldn’t find any record
of my request even though I had received an e-mail in response to it already. All of a sudden she asked
me if the request had to do with Obama. I asked if that would make any difference. She said yeah, that
all requests about Obama were supposed to go to Janice Okubo. Everything else goes to the “fulfillment
department” to be processed according to standard protocols.

So what happened is this: All my other requests for non-certified abbreviated vital records were clearly
related to Obama (Stanley Ann Dunham, Madelyn Dunham, Obama, etc) so they went to Okubo who
gave me the BS denial.

Okubo was afraid to tell the lower-level staffers that Virginia Sunahara is actually Obama, so when my
request for Virginia Sunahara’s record came in it went to the fulfillment office instead of being routed to
Janice Okubo to be obfuscated. So this is the only request related to Obama that went to somebody
besides Janice Okubo. If it had been sent to Okubo she would have said I was not authorized to receive
what I had requested, like she did with all the other requests. The fact that I got a different response
confirms that this request never went to Janice Okubo like the others.

According to the OIP the first step in the normal protocols is always to check to see whether the record
even exists. So that’s what the secretary did; she checked the birth database for Virginia Sunahara. I had
asked for the record for either Virginia Sunahara or Tomiyo Sunahara so she would have queried the
name of Sunahara for both of those records. That’s double-checking the Sunahara name. And she found
nothing there. So she sent me a response saying there wasn’t a record responsive to my request. The
record under Virginia’s BC# was being used by some other name at that point.
IOW, the HDOH changed Virginia Sunahara’s record in the birth database to somebody else’s name. And
they got caught because they didn’t tell their lowly secretary that any request regarding Virginia
Sunahara was actually about Obama, so she processed the request honestly instead of sending it to
Okubo to have her lie and obfuscate.

3. Why we can be almost certain that Obama was the thief of Virginia Sunahara’s BC#: Because
the date filed/BC# “discrepancy” fits her extremely rare birth – death - and wrong-name –on –
the-death-certificate situation, and the anomalies on Obama’s long-form indicate the base
record that was altered to create Obama’s forged long-form was for a girl born at Wahiawa
Hospital with an R for the 3rd letter of her first name (which matches Virginia’s birth situation).
The BC# on Obama’s BC is #641 even though it was filed (given a number, as per Janice Okubo’s
UIPA response) 3 days before the Nordyke twins were given the numbers 637 and 638. Okubo
said that Oahu BC’s were “almost always” filed (numbered) the same day they were accepted by
a local registrar. For an Oahu BC to be accepted by the local registrar on a Tuesday (Aug 8th) and
yet not be numbered until after the BC’s that came in on Friday (11th) would be very rare. If
there was information missing from the BC the local registrar would clarify that with the hospital
or parents before accepting the record and sending it on to the state registrar’s office. For it to
be accepted by the local registrar it had to appear complete on first glance but have some kind
of discrepancy that only showed up at the state registrar’s office.

And that fits the circumstance for Virginia Sunahara. She was born at Wahiawa Hospital on Aug
4, 1961 with a BC listing her as Virginia Sunahara but she died at Kapiolani Hospital the next day.
Her death certificate wrongly listed her as Tomiyo Sunahara (after her father Tomio), which
showed up in both newspaper death announcements. The local registrar accepted the BC
immediately on Aug 8th and sent it on to the HDOH because it was complete.
But the HDOH had received Sunahara’s DEATH certificate a day earlier (using the first name
Tomiyo), and because the death certificate was required to list the birth certificate # on it they
would have held out the death certificate to be matched with the birth certificate when it came
in. But when the BC came in the next day it was under the name Virginia instead of Tomiyo.
After a BC was numbered it could only be changed by a formal amendment, so when the BC
came in and the name discrepancy was found the workers wanted to make sure the name was
right before numbering it, to spare the family having to file a formal amendment after all the
grief they had already suffered. Clarifying what the real name was supposed to do involved
communicating with the parents, which took more time than a simple phone call to a hospital,
and that would explain why Virginia’s BC was accepted on Tuesday but not numbered until
Friday.

No such reason would exist for a standard hospital birth like Obama’s long-form claims he had.
That date filed/BC# discrepancy is a very rare fingerprint that only matches a situation like
Virginia’s, complete with the death certificate error. And this fingerprint shows up on Obama’s
birth record.

Some other things show up on Obama’s birth record that also confirm the connection between
Obama’s forged birth certificate and Virginia Sunahara. Specifically, the anomalies on Obama’s
forged long-form show that
a) the M for “male” was changed,
b) the local registrar is the registrar that shows up on another WAHIAWA HOSPITAL BC but not
Kapiolani, and
c) the third letter of the first name – R - was not C&P’ed in; it was retained from the BC that
was used as the base document for the forgery.
IOW, the things that had to be altered from the base document show that the base document
belonged to a girl who was born at Wahiawa Hospital and - like Barack - had an R for the third
letter of her name. That fits Virginia perfectly.

4. Why the HDOH would give Virginia’s brother a COLB for her but not let him see or get a copy
of the original birth certificate: Because computer records are easy to manipulate. Paper
records are not so easy, and especially when the document you have to work with already has
its fingerprints all over a high-profile forgery. And especially when you have Sheriff Joe
conducting a criminal investigation that will never end until at least one or two complete
microfilm rolls is available for forensic testing including the age of the microfilm and the
method of numbering BC’s over the course of an unspecified period of time.
Another COMPUTER record could easily be created for Virginia using some other dead child’s
BC# and then flagging that child’s record as non-valid so Virginia could appear to have a valid BC
using that BC#. The BC#’s could actually even be left that way – just reassigned. And nobody
would know the difference, as long as nobody came along and asked for the record of the child
who was stuck with the void record, as I had done for Sunahara before they gave her somebody
else’s BC#.

The number they gave Sunahara is so far out of sequence with the “date filed”/BC# that it
makes no sense whatsoever. In a stunt with CNN which aired the day before Obama released his
forged long-form, the HDOH issued a COLB to Stig Waidelich (who had been flown in by CNN to
do this stunt, apparently with the HDOH’s cooperation because they issued a COLB the same
day as it was supposedly requested, instead of requiring a week’s notice as their website says)…
that also is so far out of sequence for the “date filed”/BC# that the only way to make all those
numbers work is if the HDOH issued BC#’s totally randomly.

Some have tried to explain all these discrepancies by saying that BC’s were collected for a
month, alphabetized, and then numbered, but that contradicts Okubo’s statement that Oahu
BC’s were numbered the same day as they were accepted by the local registrars and transferred
to the HDOH. And in any event, Sunahara was given a number later than Waidelich.
So in trying to make it seem like “date filed”/BC# discrepancies are run-of-the-mill occurrences
the HDOH has almost certainly altered/reassigned BC#’s to such an extent that they will NEVER
be able to make forged microfilm rolls that make any sense. They are backed into a corner. And
they run the risk of somebody having in their file cabinet a birth certificate that pre-dates the
reassignment of BC#’s…

Ultimately, an audit of the computer transaction logs would reveal all the number-swapping
that’s been done, by whom, and when. The transactions logs are processing records and are not
confidential but the HDOH spent several months delaying and eventually using 3 different
excuses which were each debunked in turn, before concluding that the transaction record could
not be disclosed to me because it would frustrate a legitimate government function.
As if stealing other people’s BC#’s was a legitimate government function. The inmates are
running the prison, I think…