An angry statement just sworn by the lead investigator of a team assigned to review Barack Obama’s birth certificate says Hawaii officials – who are Democrats like Obama – are using “elaborate non-cooperation” to conceal birth records from law enforcement and the public.
The sworn affidavit comes from Cold Case Posse lead Mike Zullo just a week after the publication of a sworn mathematical analysis demonstrating the near-zero probability that the White House “birth certificate” is genuine.
Also, a math professor from Louisiana State University, Charles Delzell, has confirmed and endorsed the mathematical conclusions in yet another sworn statement.
Zullo, a seasoned sleuth who heads the team deputized by Joe Arpaio, recently re-elected sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., fingers Hawaii’s governor, deputy attorney general and health department chiefs as obstructing justice.
Zullo’s affidavit charges these officials are “hiding” original birth records, thwarting the posse’s hunt for those who forged the document at the White House website.
His detailed catalog of Hawaii’s misfeasance is shocking.
After two visits to the islands in the past six months, he has “chronicled a series of inconsistent and misleading representations” that various officials of the government of Hawaii have made since he was assigned to the case when 250 voters petitioned their sheriff to investigate the dodgy document more than a year ago.
Those statements have come since 2007 and are on the question of what original birth records, if any, are held by the Hawaii Department of Health.
The department, Zullo said, “has engaged in what the sheriff’s investigators believe is a systematic effort to hide from law enforcement and the public whatever original 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may have in its possession.”
Officials “changed their policies and procedures in a manner calculated to hinder our law-enforcement investigation,” he continued.
Alvin Onaka, Hawaii’s chief birth registrar, refused to talk to Zullo.
“Much to our amazement we were informed that Mr. Onaka does not speak to the public.”
Jill Nagamine, Hawaii’s deputy attorney general, spoke to Zullo at his insistence but “refused to verify the authenticity” of the birth certificate released to the American public on the government’s whitehouse.gov site.
Nagamine “would not provide us with any confirmation that the document was created by the Hawaii Department of Health.”
She accused Zullo of “trying to get a verification of a birth record without legal authority.”
Yet the duly deputized investigators had presented their credentials to police in Honolulu before interviewing her.
She “constantly evaded answering every question about the legitimacy of the document.”
Zullo went to the Kapiolani Hospital, where the forgery says Obama was born. He asked to see the publicly available birth records for 1961, the alleged year of his birth. The hospital “less than politely refused.”
Management failed even to confirm Obama had been born there, “nor did they confirm that they were in possession of his birth records.”
In 2008, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Health Department’s director, said she had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record.”
Eight months later she changed her statement. She dropped all mention of seeing the “original birth certificate.”
Instead, she said she had seen “the original vital records verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American.”
In 1961, state law permitted Hawaiian parents of children born anywhere in the world to register them as Hawaiian-born, a legalized backdoor to U.S. citizenship. Article II of the U.S. Constitution insists that only a “natural-born citizen” can serve as president.
At that time, Hawaii’s local newspapers filled space by printing birth announcements from the archive, including Hawaiian birth certificates of foreign-born children.
So the announcement of Obama’s birth in two newspapers is not evidence he was born in Hawaii.
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii’s governor, said he was present at Obama’s birth. Then he changed his story. He “acknowledged that he did not see Obama’s parents with their newborn son at any hospital.”
Abercrombie then said he remembered seeing Obama as a child with his parents at social events.
Zullo writes: “There is no evidence to support that claim. No doctor or nurse who attended his birth has come forward to say so.”
Abercrombie told a Honolulu newspaper he would search for definitive records to prove Obama was born in Hawaii.
He said: “The continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president’s chances of re-election in 2012.” The issue would raise “political implications … that we simply cannot have.”
Yet Abercrombie never subsequently said he had seen Obama’s original long-form birth certificate. He said no more than that he had identified “an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives.”
Zullo adds: “If such a document had existed, Abercrombie would have had it within minutes of his request.”
He continues: “To date the purported undisclosed birth record in the state archives that Abercrombie has claimed to have discovered and has described as being ‘actually written’ has never been made public.
“Being located in the state archives, this document should be available for inspection by the general public without restraint.”
Fukino told CNN in 2011 that she had gone into the Health Department’s vault, where she had inspected Obama’s original birth certificate.
Zullo comments: “Inferentially, it should have been that easy for Gov. Abercrombie to locate it as well.”
Nagamine said: “Accessing the original birth records was difficult and expensive.”
Yet Fukino had told CNN “she simply went to the vault and inspected Obama’s original birth certificate.”
Zullo’s affidavit shows a picture of Onaka lifting out a volume of 1973 birth certificates from the archive shelves, showing that consulting the records is no harder than looking up a book in a library.
On Zullo’s second visit to Hawaii, he met Duncan Sunahara, who had been refused a certified copy of a long-form birth certificate for his sister, Virginia.
Shortly after her birth, she had died of breathing complications the day of Obama’s birth.
Zullo comments: “The Cold Case Posse is compelled to consider the question why this little girl’s 1961 long-form birth certificate was so disconcerting to the Hawaii Department of Health that it did not wish to issue a copy to Mr. Sunahara upon request.”
Hawaii took great care to number certificates sequentially. Officials stacked them in monthly batches by date and time of birth before numbering each in turn with an automatically incremented stamp.
Obama, born at 7:24 p.m. Aug. 4, 1961, now has No. 10641 on his birth certificate.
Virginia Sunahara, born almost two hours later, now has No. 11080. Yet on average only two babies an hour were born in Hawaii that year. Her number should have been no more than 10650. It is too big by well over 400.
Also, twins born the following day were given numbers earlier than Obama’s current number: No. 10637 and No. 10638.
Investigators suspect Obama’s number was not assigned in 1961 but may have been taken from Sunahara’s birth certificate.
When Sunahara first asked for a certified copy of his sister’s birth certificate last year, he did not get it, though Hawaiian law says he should get a full certificate if he asks for it.
He was given a short-form computer abstract. The posse suspects that was when officials altered Virginia Sunahara’s computerized record to give it an impossibly high number.
Zullo also mentions evidence that the computerized index of birth records did not contain Obama’s name when a Hawaiian citizen first consulted it, but the name had been added when he looked again two weeks later.
The short-form abstract of Obama’s birth record had been published in 2008. At first, the number had been blacked out, though there was no legitimate reason why. Shortly afterward an image was published with the number 10641 visible.
So, if the posse is right to suspect the Health Department had used Virginia Sunahara’s number when it issued Obama’s short-form abstract in 2008, it had to alter her record to give her a different number altogether – “a possibility,” says Zullo, “that the investigators are constrained to bear in mind.”
The posse has reported to the sheriff that two crimes have been committed: first, fraudulently creating a forgery that the White House had characterized, knowingly or unknowingly, as an officially produced governmental birth record; and secondly, fraudulently presenting to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery that the White House had represented as “proof positive” of Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaiian long-form birth certificate.
Zullo concludes that the whole question could be settled quickly and decisively if Hawaii would let his forensic specialists examine Obama’s original birth certificate and hospital birth record.