Loretta Fuddy Death - Obama Birth Certificate. - New evidence

butterdezillion
Depends on which of the conflicting stories you believe.

If you believe DOH Administrator Mark Miller, she was on the USCG helicopter at 4:30 being given aid but was not able to be revived.

If you believe Rev. Kilillea (citing Yamamoto) she held onto Yamamoto's hand for a while, unable to relax, and then let go and was unresponsive

There is no conflicting report there, what makes you claim there is?

Fuddy was alive in the USCG helicopter at 5:19

Where is that stated? It is stated she could not be revived in the helicopter....

reply to post by ckhk3


I also should have noted that the media reported one dead at 4:40 - four minutes before the USCG was reported as being on-scene. The reports indicated 7 on shore at 5:09 so Fuddy was not picked up out of the water until after that. Who was the one dead that the media reported at 4:40 then? Did somebody else die also ? Or did the media report what was SUPPOSED to be the outcome of the crash before anybody could have known that really WAS the outcome of the crash?

Again, a very significant "discrepancy".

reply to post by butterdezillion


If Fuddy was not dead in the water, then the USCG broke their protocols to pass her by, dilly-dallied around for another at LEAST 25 minutes before picking her out of the water, and she was STILL alive when they did pick her up. And we're supposed to believe she died of an irregular heartbeat because of the stress - that knocked her out for at least a half-hour before she finally expired in the USCG helicopter...

No matter how you slice it, this stinks. Serious, serious discrepancies.

butterdezillion
Serious, serious discrepancies.

Not really, just you wanting to misunderstand what actually happened. If you had done some research you would realise the mass media does not always get every story right.

reply to post by CEHughes


Notice Nellie has signally failed to address the fact that raised and sealed documents attesting to the validaty of the data of the birtth certificates HAVE been submitted to two seperate SoS's already.

Here for example is the link to the one for MS.

Which by its very nature meets the Federal Rules of Evidence (Fed. R. Evid. 902.)

Strange that she doesn't want to address that, or the insanity and improbability of her plane/ninja diver/heart attack gun thesis.

Or the little point that she herself has stated over at Free Republic on innumerable occassions that is at best semi competent in the use of computers. Ergo the "hacking" she babbles about is the inevitable result of faiure between seat and keyboard.

As an example, she posted about when she used Microsoft Word as a photo editing application, it crashed and posted up a number of standard error messages, in Butters world that meant that Microsoft themselves were personally screwing and communicating with her.

reply to post by butterdezillion


Amd again Nellie...WHY..?

What EXACT reason or reasoning would lead some all powerful cabal to concoct a vast conspiracy where hundreds of people are involved as opposed to picking up a person from their home or killing them in some "burglary gone bad"..?

Why posit some bizarre fantasy involving multiple divers, extra people in the water, a mysterious "10th passenger" a pinpoint unpowered plane landing, no witnesses or hundreds of individuals all either part of the plot or intimidated to silence..?

Lets remember, Nellie also decided that the video's of Fuddy's body in the coffin at her memorial service was in fact a photoshopped fake where again hundreds of familiy and friends of Fuddy all participated in the conspiracy.

Why...?

Either she was dead or she wasn't, if she was, why fake a set of TV station video's, just plop her in the coffin. If she wan't again why involve hundreds of people in a fake memorial service with nary one leaking that there was in fact no body...in the coffin....at Fuddy's memorial....

Come along Nellie got to be a reason or two, or three

reply to post by bovril


First off, those documents have the signature stamp of Onaka (in one case with initials to indicate that Onaka had nothing to do with the signature being there) but the raised seal of the DOH Director (Fuddy), which by statute is supposed to accompany the signature OF THE DOH DIRECTOR - which was not present on either of those documents. So these documents would not fit US law for full faith and credit because they don't include the raised seal of the certifying body. Onaka has a different seal, and it is not present on those documents.

Second, even if these were legally-valid letters of verification, where does any HI official verify where Obama was born, when, and to whom - all of which are critical to eligibility? Show me on those pages where those critical birth facts are stated. In Hawaii, the legal terminology used by Deputy AG Jill Nagamine in certifying the DOH Administrative Rules for the Sunahara case was "true and correct copy" and even at that the judge wouldn't accept that copy of the DOH Administrative Rules on the basis of Nagamine's certification, because it had to be certified by the CUSTODIiAN OF THE RECORD. In the case of vital records the custodian of the records is ONAKA, and he neither certified the letters of verification with his seal, nor stated the LEGAL VALIDITY of any record, nor stated any birth facts. And he never claimed that ANYTHING was a "true and correct/accurate copy", even though expressly asked to verify that (and required by law to verify that if he can, since it was requested to be verified).

Third, when was ANY of the "evidence" in those cases ever subjected to cross-examination?

What I have said is true: Obama has never submitted any evidence with raised seal stating his birth facts, subject to Federal Rules of Evidence and cross-examination.

The people trying to say otherwise have probably already heard the above facts many times and are hoping to slip by the lie without me saying anything because they know I'm very, very busy. People, the enemies of this country lie as easily as they breathe. Don't be fooled. They're just trying to keep me busy putting out the lies so that I can't get anything else done. Sandbagging. "If you can't win by right, then win by might." A lie can make it around the world twice before the truth can get its shoes tied.

I have other stuff I need to do so I'm not going to respond to these sandbagging attempts, but I'll add here that if you look at www.hopkinsmedicine.org... you'll see that atrial arrhythmias would cause death by causing a heart attack. Fuddy did not have a heart attack; if she had there would have been chemicals in the body that would have confirmed a heart attack and the acting coroner (the police chief of Maui County) would not have ruled cardiac arrhythmia as the cause of death. Ventricular arrhythmias are fatal within minutes. Fuddy would not have fallen unconscious due to a ventricular arrhythmia at 4pm and been picked out of the water alive at 5:19, as the official story line requires.

And if it's true that she was only unconscious and not dead when Ornott and Peer found her - for reasons that the coroner could not find and so resorted to claiming it was cardiac arrhythmia - their dilly-dallying cost Fuddy her life (according to the official story line). More specifically, their VIOLATION OF PROTOCOL cost Fuddy her life; they were only allowed to pass her by if she had head, heart, lungs, or liver separated from the rest of her body, was stiff as a board (which sets in 2 hours after death at room temperature), or had pooling of blood at the lowest point of her body (which sets in 2 hours after death at room temperature).

As I've said before, no matter how you slice it the "official story line" stinks to high heaven.

And that's even BEFORE you factor in the extra people and equipment that show up in Puentes' video.

hellobruce

butterdezillion
Depends on which of the conflicting stories you believe.

If you believe DOH Administrator Mark Miller, she was on the USCG helicopter at 4:30 being given aid but was not able to be revived.

If you believe Rev. Kilillea (citing Yamamoto) she held onto Yamamoto's hand for a while, unable to relax, and then let go and was unresponsive

There is no conflicting report there, what makes you claim there is?

Fuddy was alive in the USCG helicopter at 5:19

Where is that stated? It is stated she could not be revived in the helicopter....

edit on 26-3-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

Here's the report that states at 17:19 hours the USCG had 1 in critical condition. Critcal condition suggests being alive, not dead! So the USCG let Fuddy flounder around in the ocean for an hour before finally extracting her. And she was still alive at 17:19!

Err, wrong but thanks for playing

Medics on a rescue can't pronounce, only a doctor can, ergo at best they can say "critical"

Care to try again..?

reply to post by Mikeultra


It's called triage. The CG rescue swimmers cannot know how many people there are in the water or what their condition is. The first rescue swimmer stated that the first person he encountered was Director Fuddy. She had no pulse, was not breathing and was unresponsive. Under triage protocols, with limited resources, you move on to the next victim. Spending time trying to get her into a helicopter so they could start CPR is valuable minutes spent on someone who may not survive while others you can help may be dying.

Understand this is not declaring her dead, only a doctor can make that determination.

reply to post by butterdezillion


"I also should have noted that the media reported one dead at 4:40 - four minutes before the USCG was reported as being on-scene."

This is not true.

The Maui Fire and Rescue incident report says that at 4:40 the SUCG reported that they had picked up three people.

"Per PO Petty UNK how many PAXX USCG had picked up from water"

How could they have picked people up if they had not arrived yet. Your time frame is wrong. Just more sloppy research work.

BTW, there were no extras on the shoreline. From the Maui Fire and Rescue incident report:

4:06 - 5C20 - "Looks like some made in the shore."
4:07 - E9 - "Visual on people in the water...A few has been in shore...There are several people still in water"
4:27 - KPAA CMND -"BC6 primary focus to get the remaining victims in the water...we have two that made it to shore"
4:35 - "1 swam to shore"
4:38 - "Manifest 9 board 7 in water 1 on shore 1 unlocated"
4:57 - KPAA - "Air 1 we have a total of five out of the water ...We don't have the status of USCG of how many they got out of water"
5:01 - "PO Petty saying USCG needs to check he thinks 3 ...CWB"
5:03 - "USCG PO Marks ...USCG pick up 3 from water"
5:06 - "PIO Updated - Air 1 picked up 5 .. CG picked up 5 1 unaccounted for"
5:06 - "US PO Petty - confirmed 3 picked out of water ... 5 by Air1 ... not sure on shore was part of the aircraft"
5:09 - Air 1 - 'we have a total of 7 here..2 unaccounted far"
5:12 - UCSG - "Confirmed we have 3 PAXX will ck with COMM and in KPAA if that's the toatl with R10 7"
5:19 - KPAA Cmmd - "USCG has 1 critical trying to figure out where to fly it Oahu or Maui"
5:21 - USCG - 7 Paxx total on shore - USCG has 1 board critail."

What you are describing as discrepancies are merely the typical confusion after this type of incident. For a number of hours after Asiana Flight 214 crash landed at San Francisco Airport, there were reports that 50 passengers were unaccounted for. And that was on land at a major airport with fire crews on the scene in minutes.

bovril
Err, wrong but thanks for playing

Medics on a rescue can't pronounce, only a doctor can, ergo at best they can say "critical"

Care to try again..?

Can police officers pronounce people dead? Just curious if your views are universal in all circumstances. I think it would have been better to lift Fuddy out of the water at once and leave the better off to wait a few minutes longer. She could have been saved.

Mikeultra
She could have been saved.

You know this how exactly?

reply to post by Mikeultra


The only persons in the US by both federal and stae law permitted to pronounce death are a physician, medical examiner or coroner.

The reason is that the recording, when attested to by competent authority (physician, medical examiner or coroner) is a permanent legal record and prima facie record of death, good in all legal jurisdictions in the US.

As for your statement around how Fuddy could have been saved, I'm not aware you were one of the Coast Guard in attendance or that your expertise as a doctor or qualified medic allowed you to make such an assertion.

I assume you refute the coroners finding that Fuddy died from cardiac arrhythmia as a result of stress?

Said arrythmia meaning that when she was eventually found by the Coast Guard it would have meant she would have been beyond resucitation available on a helicopter.

reply to post by Mikeultra

Thanks for being here. Wish I knew how to add stars to your comments.

Let me know whether you received a message from me just now, with a question about malware.

reply to post by bovril


Cite your sources.

The CAD communications referred to a delta victim before any victims were transferred to any hospital. How does that fit with your claims?

No matter how you slice it, the USCG transported a 73-year-old woman and a 39-year-old man to the Makani Kai base at the Honolulu Airport, and another person directly to Queens Hospital. Who was in such bad shape that the USCG flew them directly to Queens?

The 73-year-old lady and Puentes were taken to the Honolulu airport.
Yamamoto and Kawasaki declined transport and medical services, and were flown by Makani Kai to Honolulu, where Kawasaki (or his son, depending on which story you believe) drove to Queens for medical care.
That leaves five people who the USCG could have flown directly to Queens: Jacob, Rosa, Hollstein, the 70-ish-year-old guy who waved eagerly to Mark Peer, or Fuddy.

Which one was it? And why did the NTSB list Kawasaki's injuries as the most serious, and the FAA incident report list all the passengers as having mild injuries?

reply to post by Mikeultra


This just shows your ignorance.

The first person the CG rescue swimmer encountered was Director Fuddy. Using her as his only example, what condition would he assume the other passengers were in? How would he know that they could be left alone for awhile?

Do you want a good description of what triage is? Here is a description about triage in the case of Asiana Flight 214:

"In his presentation before the NTSB Board of Inquiry, Chief David Whitaker, Chairman of the Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Working Group, described the START (Simple Triage and Rapid Transport) system of triage, which is based on a quick evaluation of victims in a mass casualty situation. (NTSB Board of Inquiry Hearing Transcript, 246: 1—247: 1.) Chief Whitaker
acknowledged that it is a “hard call for a first responder” but, in order “to do the most good for the most number of people” it is imperative that “those that are deceased or obviously in a dying state are left in that position.” (NTSB Board of Inquiry Hearing Transcript, 246: 8—23.) This is not a matter of being careless or callous, but rather reflects that professional rescuers must maneuver through a complex and dynamic environment to save as many lives as possible. (Testimony of Assistant
Deputy Chief Dale Carnes, NTSB Board of Inquiry Hearing Transcript, 298:14-19.)"

cbssanfran.files.wordpress.com...

It is simply amazing to me that people that people sitting in their comfy chairs in front of their computers can make pronouncements like "She could have been saved." and have the gall to second guess people who jump into the #ing open ocean to save lives.

My mother told me at a very young age not to lie and to always tell the truth about everything, because I'd never have a problem remembering things.
Barry's mother obviously didn't tell him the same. With so many lies to keep track of, it's much easier to just seal all of his records. But as with all liars, they slip up when telling their lies. As an example look at the 2 differing accounts of when he left Hawaii, when he returned, and where he was as a kindergartner student.

Exhibit A.
Barry in Miss Sakais' 1967 kindergartner class photo in Noelani Elementary School.


Exhibit B.
05/03/1990 Daily Herald article in which it is stated, "...Obama moved to Southeast Asia at age 2 when his parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian. Until 5th grade, Obama attended Indonesian schools,..." But what was he doing in Miss Sakais' 1967 kindergartner class? How is that possible to be in 2 places at one time?

www.theobamafile.com...

Exhibit C.
This 09/08/2008 article in the Los Angeles Times has yet another conflicting timeline and story. It states the following.

In Hawaii, he married Obama's mother, a white American from Wichita, Kansas. Two years later, Obama's parents separated and he moved to a small village outside Jakarta, Indonesia, with his mother, an anthropologist. There, he spent his boyhood playing with the sons and daughters of rice farmers and rickshaw drivers, attending an Indonesian-speaking school, where he had little contact with Americans.

After six years in Indonesia, Obama was sent back to the United States to live with his maternal grandparents in Hawaii in preparation for college. It was then that he began to correspond with his father, a senior economist for the Kenyan finance ministry who recounted intriguing tales of an African heritage that Obama knew little about. - See more at: latimesblogs.latimes.com...

latimesblogs.latimes.com...


So according to this article he lived in Indonesia from age 2 until age 8, and then returned to Hawaii in preparation for college? At age 8 he was preparing for college? And began corresponding with his "father" who abandoned him shortly after he was born? OK, sure if you believe that, I've got a bridge for sale. This account also conflicts with the 1967 Kindergartner class photo in Hawaii.

A serial liar he is, as all those around him are, including the officials in Hawaii. My source for this evidence. www.americanthinker.com...

reply to post by CEHughes


Nine people already reported as having life jackets in the water - in a situation where the USCG plane didn't even bother to put down life rafts because 2 USCG helicopters were right behind and according to the USCG rescue swimmers there were at least 6 aircraft in the air during the rescue. That's almost one aircraft/victim, when you consider that Hollstein was already on shore.

And you're saying that the response to these victims should be the same as the response when there are potentially hundreds of seriously-injured victims?

Pathetic.

butterdezillion
reply to post by CEHughes

 

Nine people already reported as having life jackets in the water - in a situation where the USCG plane didn't even bother to put down life rafts because 2 USCG helicopters were right behind and according to the USCG rescue swimmers there were at least 6 aircraft in the air during the rescue. That's almost one aircraft/victim, when you consider that Hollstein was already on shore.

And you're saying that the response to these victims should be the same as the response when there are potentially hundreds of seriously-injured victims?

Pathetic.

I concur 100% on that. I sent a PM, I guess there's a bug in the system?