Unstated – Codes In Conflict On Birth Document!


I was able to watch the live stream of the WND/Sheriff Joe presser on the new information they have in the ongoing investigation on obama’s fraudulent long form birth certificate.  Turns out that the document itself has clues that prove some of the information should not exist on that form.

Here is a brief breakdown.

At just over ten minutes in, we get to the interesting “new” information.

Here’s the deal.  On the White House released “long form” birth certificate that obama gave his personal blessing on – were some penciled numbers.  Everyone knew they were official code, yet we had no way to verify what the code numbers meant.  It turns out that they (Posse) were able to verify that the codings were vital statistic codings required by the federal government in 1960(s).  On locating the mysterious “U.K.L. Lee”, who, due to the excellent work of “Citizen Investigator some time back, was discovered to be one Mrs.Verna Lee – the Local Registrar who signed off on obama’s birth certificate, Mr. Mike Zullo with Dr. Corsi’s aid as the interviewer, were able to finally verify, through Mrs. Lee, the coding significance and the procedures that regulated the handling and file numbering of the birth documents in Hawaii during the 1960’s.

In 1960 the birth certificates came to the central location of the Dept. of Health in HI.  (Honolulu)  They would come in as (regions) or “batches”.   Those documents were then looked at by a human being – a employee of the Dept. Of Health, and they were “coded” by hand.  With numerals, that meant something to the federal government.  This document (of obama’s) would have been coded, and then according to Mrs. Lee, would have later had the coding re-checked by another Dept. of Health employee, then signed by the Registrar.   Then the documents were placed in a secured office.  At the end of the month the documents were numerical numbered by batch.  They were numbered in sequence using date of occurrence, and/or time, whichever occurred first, from a specific batch – for example Kapiolani Hospital would be one “batch”.  A regional office/outlying island would be another batch.  They were consecutively numbered with a stamper. Get where this goes?

I will cut out  a big chunk of stuff here to go straight to the meat.  The file number on obama’s birth document (released from the White House) can not have been in the batch from Kapiolani Hospital, the same batch that would have absolutely included the Nordyke Twins documents.  The numerical sequence is wrong.  Because obama was born one day before the twins, and supposedly in the same hospital, his birth document would have been given a lower number than theirs, NOT higher.  This shows that the field (6c) displaying Kapiolani as his place of birth contains erroneous information.  In order to have been assigned that number, if born on Aug. 4, 1961, obama had to have been born elsewhere on the island.

Next, the penciled in code numbers.  Zullo stated these were more important than anything else.

The number 9, next to the “fathers race” field (line 9),  also fathers “place of work” (line 12b), had stumped everyone as to the 1961 meaning and significance.

At about 15 min. in: Zullo tells us that Dr. Corsi went to the HI State Archives and Supreme Court library to do research.  They (Posse) obtained information from the  1961 Vital Statistic instruction manual for births.  The finding:

“Please note, that the number 9 was the code used to indicate that the answer to a particular question was “NOT STATED”.  That put some of the information on obamas BC in conflict with the written (twice verified) code.  The code “9” meant that information was NOT PROVIDED by the applicant.”

The fields 9 (Fathers race)  and 12b (Fathers kind of business or industry) were both coded with the number 9, and should have been left blank as the code indicated that the information for those boxes was not provided BY THE APPLICANT.



It was the policy of the HI Dept. Of Health to have the coding reviewed by a second deputy clerk.  It is not likely that an error was made, and overlooked by the second clerk.

Of course there is much more. There is information that proves HI registered -as Hawaiian born- persons based solely on the word of the person seeking a birth registration for someone else. 

There is the description of Zullos interview with the Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine which is interesting.  He got nowhere, but decided to draw some conclusions from her responses to him.  He got treated the same way every researcher has – she constantly looped back to quoting regulations.  I’m thinking that would have been fun to watch.

They should have the full video up now.


Up on Drudge now:


It links to an article which is predictably snarky.  Fuck these chicken shit covered “reporters”.  They can verify the information to be either true or false all by themselves – yet they do not.  It’s because they know damn good and well that the Posse’s findings are completely legitimate.

This isn’t a bad news report – not snarky I mean – from Phoenix Fox 10 news.  The embedded video doesn’t work, so I’ll just pop up the link in pink.


H/T reader An American Story – thanks for reminding me about the Daily Pen blogpost on the vital stats coding, etc.  While the writer did not include links or screenshots re: the coding, nor any links (in this particular article) to information supporting their account on the handling procedures for the Hawaiian birth documents back in 1961 (which is why I wasn’t inclined to give it my complete trust) , they did provide inserts which support the information released by Sheriff Joe and Mike Zullo yesterday.  The material is well written, very lengthy, and while there are inserts as mentioned, there are no images, links or screenshots from the parent source, for example: the 1961 Vital Statistic Instruction Manual for Births mention by Zullo.  Pink link is to the Daily Pen article which contains the following snip:

click to enlarge

Daily Pen snip from the 2/29/2012 blog article on HI DOH procedures

I found this partial form that I had done a screenshot of well over a year ago – I think it was a sample modern NJ birth reg. form.  Anyway – it lists “9” as Not classifiable/Unknown.  As I said though – this IS a modern form.



~ by ladysforest on July 17, 2012.

42 Responses to “Unstated – Codes In Conflict On Birth Document!”

  1. Sorry is this post is somewhat jumbled up and too brief – been a tad unwell.

  2. When you are feeling better, maybe you can take a look at this. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/decoding-the-long-form-part-2/

    I don’t see where he has debunked the #9 issue at all. I see him reasonably speculating based on what he was looking at, but no debunking. I would like to see that part of the manual where #9 means not stated. Are we just taking the word of the investigators or is there a copy of the pertinent manual page?

    • If you watch the video the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yft0kz_fbnA&feature=player_embedded) they have a photocopy of a page from the 1960 Vital Statistics Instruction Manual shown at 0.31. ‘9’ is listed as “Unknown or not stated”.

      • Sadly it is just a small cropped section showing ONLY the codes. I prefer to see the entire page that the insert was taken from, even if it’s just in a box off to the edge of the image. Without the full page image, including page no., header, what have you – it could be argued as coming from a different year/different manual – as IS being done right now by obama subjects.

        That’s why I am always such a spaz about trying to include as much documentation as possible. Head ’em off at the pass.

  3. Anyone with brains can see the obvious.
    He’s a total fraud.

    My question is why can’t people see the rest of what’s obvious?
    Which is that no matter how much proof there is, nobody is going to do one dang thing about it. So why do people keep asking why congress etc doesn’t do something.

    When the first court back in 08 said we had to wait until after the election to contest his eligibility and then after he was elected the next court said we should have contested his eligibility before he was elected, i knew the fix was in.

    Nothing’s changed. I’m not some kind of fool that keeps asking why they won’t do something.

    • Good points, all. However – we MUST keep asking, and keep pushing. They want us to give up you know. It’s when they know they have complete control over the public. Besides, it’s not a bad thing to point out the corruption even if it takes a monumental effort to get anything addressed.

  4. Good morning Ladysforest, hope you are feeling well. I have been following this issue for a some time and I figured most have known about the pencil coded numbers. I follow the articles at The Post & Email along with many other sites. One site that may be of interest to you is The Daily Pen. The P& E has asked questions of the writers at that site but never has an answer been forth coming to my knowledge.

    You stated, “yet we had no way to verify what the code numbers meant”, well back in Feburary at the The Daily Pen two articles were written explaining exactly what the vital statistics coded numbers represented with images of the Gov’s coding books of that era. I draw your attention to the articles dated Feburary 9, 2012 Part I and then another article posted on Feburary 29, 2012 Part II. Both contain info on this exact issue of the vital statistic coding.

    I do not know the authors of that site but they were on this issue months ago. I haven’t reread the post lately but one of the points made was that according to the vital statistic manual issued by the Feds, only a 50% sample coding was done and only on EVEN numbered certificates thus Obama’s alledged BC should not have even been coded seeing how it was an ODD numbered document, if I remember correctly.I have not attempted to verify any of the sites information but I figure that you should take a look at these articles for there may be some data that can be verified.

    • Thank you – a little better this am, but I slept REALLY late!

      As to the Daily Pen work, I do recall reading a lot of this there. I don’t recall when I read it if the blogger had provided images or links to the coding books. Like many decent researchers, once they find something important – they then fail to post the images or links as proof, or start drawing conclusions that are not based strictly on fact. I remember thinking that most of what they offered sounded very plausible, but it didn’t come with the proof. Then they drew conclusions on how the newspapers received and processed the birth announcements. That is when I quit reading.

      We citizen researchers won’t get anywhere, or be any use to our readers, if we present theory as fact. A bunch of eligibility bloggers do that, and it is simply a distraction (at best). While most of the Daily Pens research seemed to be based on good fact, the source has to be provided.

  5. Dear ladysforest,

    The following birth certificate information is in the public domain:

    Aug 5 Susan Nordyke 151-61-10637
    Aug 5 Gretchen Nordyke 151-61-10638
    Aug 4 Barack H. Obama 151-61-10641
    Aug 4 Virginia Sunahara 151-61-11080

    When interpreted based on the HDOH procedures as explained by Mike Zullo and the knowledge that Virginia Sunahara was born at the same hospital as the Nordyke twins (right?), two observations jump out.

    1) Virginia Sunahara’s “official” new number cannot possibly be legitimate.

    2) Even her presumed original number (the one obama-fraud is now using) seems inconsistent with HDOH procedures (the dates and numbers do not fall in line with those of the twins).

    I know VS failed to thrive and I remember reading that she was moved to another location (right? but was it in the same hospital?) where she died the next day. If I remember right, wasn’t her death certificate issued before her BC (getting fuzzy here)? Could the troubles and disruption from dealing with her tragically short life events have caused the HDOH to give her a BC number consistent with her date of death? Does this explain the out-of-sequence number problem that Zullo noted? (That would be bad luck for obama-fraud to have pinched a BC with such a very unusual procedural anomaly – he probably feels cheated – karma can be such a wookie.)

    • Virginia wasn’t born at Kapi – she was transferred there. I do not know if her birth docs were prepared by the hospital where she was born, but there is every reason to think they were. So, that would have put her in a different batch?

      • Thanks (so many details to keep track of). 🙂

        Again going by memory here (too lazy to check today), but I believe Mike Zullo has once remarked that they are suspicious that obama-fraud’s BC number was stolen from Virginia Sunahara. From what they have learned about BC numbering, that number could not have been assigned to a Kapi associated birth (no matter if VS or obama-fraud), so I guess you must be right that her number was based on wherever initially she was born (which I’d have to look up – do you remember?).

        The thing that is a little weird (but entirely possible, I suppose) is that Virginia and the twins are both so close to their respective boundaries of BC number group assignments, the twins being very near the end of their group and VS being very near the beginning of her (very much smaller?) group.

        I am just trying to understand how this situation could happen and whether (unlike most of what obama-fraud would have us swallow – what a disgusting image that conjures) it is reasonably plausible and consistent with what is known about the practices of the HDOH.

        • Zullo said that he spoke with a man who had been an intern (?) at Kapi. back in the 60’s. He said that the hospital was new and quite small and that the maternity ward was about 20 beds. Virgina was born at Wahiawa Hospital, and I do not know how large the ward there might have been. Presumably Kapi., being newer, had the better equipment to deal with critical newborns. Just a guess, but likely the older hospital had a larger maternity ward.

    • And yes, the death cert. must be issued within three days, so it had to have been issued first. That shouldn’t have interfered with the procedure for the birth cert. In fact, on finding out that the birth certs weren’t even assigned numbers until the end of the month, it explains how Virginias first name was changed (from her fathers) without there being any amendment.

  6. Just wanted to say Thanks. The work and effort you and others have put into this issue is greatly appreciated.

  7. Thanks for the rundown, LF. I haven’t had a chance to listen to the video yet because our Internet is messing up lately and is too slow to listen to videos.

    • YW. Sorry it’s such a cobbled up mess – my dubious writing skills took a powder yesterday. I just wanted to get the basics out – the “findings” that Zullo found so “shocking”. It’s good to have OFFICIAL confirmation of these things, and have it documented by professionals. Lord knows we many micro-bloggers have done basically the same research – but we have no power or voice.

      It is good to know the procedure that the DOH followed with the handling and file numbering of the birth certs. To have it officially confirmed I mean. Those cutie-pies at the DOH wouldn’t even confirm that kind of info.

      It is good to have official confirmation of the meaning of the code numbers – this prevents the obama subjects from claiming whatever they want – bwahahaha. African my ass!

  8. What I wish would have been stated was did the investigators ask Mrs Lee if she EVER registered births at Kapiolani? I have seen her name as the local registrar on a number of birth certificates, but they have always been at Wahiawa. The Nordyke twins, born in Kapiolani were signed by a different local registrar, who I believe was also the state registrar.

    I wish Mrs Lee was asked if the state registrar was the local registrar for Honolulu, and did she sign all of the BC’s from Kapiolani?

    • We have wondered that as well. I do not know if the Deputy Registrars were assigned to a specific satellite office, assigned to a specific “region” or “batch”, and ONLY signed off on the certs from those specific locations. We can try via World Net Daily to ask Dr. Corsi to address the question on whether he asked Verna that. It may not have occurred to him.

  9. This story is not going away. I posted this on a FReep thread. I would AP to this list. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2907273/posts?page=127#127

  10. Add AP ^^

  11. I very much value our opinion. Would you please take a look at a recent post of Dr. Conspiracy? Do you think Mr. Zullo is fabricating the 1961 Code to help the facts along? I am also trying to nail down Dr. C as to whether he is saying that the race codes for the parents were the same as for the child.


    • Sorry! Just found this one in spam. It is because there is a link in your comment. I have the filter set for two or more links, but it’s getting hung up on even one link.

    • The race code for the child would not have gone onto the birth cert – at least I don’t think so. It was more a way to compile the vital stats for official use for the government. I’ve never seen a birth certificate that lists the CHILDS race, just the parents.

      I *sigh* will go over to Dr. Cs and read tomorrow. I will say though that he is nowhere near as bad as most of his commenters. Where his theory, and Zullo’s fall short, is why would the same “race qualifier” code be used both for the fathers race and for the fathers business/industry? “9” would have to be a universal/general/interchangeable catch-all code. I can see it being in the race field – but where is the chart that explains it being in the “business” field?

  12. I don’t know if I am having trouble with posting comments or you decided it would be better to delete my last one. My goal is to find the truth, no matter where it leads. There is a claim that Mr. Zullo used the Code from 1968, not 1961. I would like to hear his response to what is being claimed.

    • No – I didn’t delete any comment from you! I know some of yours went into spam, but I put them through. I heard that Dr.C had made that claim, and it’s why I wish Zullo/Corsi would post images of the actual manual and pics from the full page from where the snip was taken. It bugs the crap out of me when “researchers” don’t show their source – especially if it’s a MANUAL for pete’s sake.

  13. Charo- I am finding your comments in the post before this one

  14. Hello Kittens! I am now aware that if you include a link in your comment – it will probably end up in SPAM. That means it may take me several hours to release it. My husband sometimes is a selfish monster and uses this computer. To be fair to him, it is the only one we have. I guess I should learn to share graciously. Maybe some day that will happen.

  15. Issue is no longer on Drudge. NONE of the middle to big “blogs” (baby drudges) even ran it at all. I believe Hannity is supposed to interview Sheriff Joe tomorrow – we’ll see if he cancels.

    • I couldn’t find it in Drudge’s archives either.

      Why would Drudge remove it? Did the RNC pressure them? Were they “helped” by threats or a government hacker?

      The CCP evidence could crush Obama’s campaign, but a national security threat could also be claimed. For example, the wars involve soldiers who could be charged with murder if our government is found to be illegitimate. Internet information possibly damaging to Obama’s presidential status has been suppressed by removal. Who is doing the removing? The CIA? The Secret Service/Treasury Dept? The NSA? DOJ? or someone associated with the Obama campaign?

      We know that everyone in politics and in office wants to abdicate responsibility for the removal of the first black president to the voters just as they claimed he was vetted at the polls in 2008. Initially sympathetic judges have rapidly fallen in line with the administration during eligibility challenges. The Republican politicians have refused to challenge his legitimacy and background remembering that the race card was played blindly when Obama faced any obstruction from anyone. And then there is Holder as head of “justice”.

      If a campaign is hacking websites, is there any recourse? What if the government is doing the hacking?

      We also heard of outlandish threats made by the government during the GM takeover and bank bailouts. If thuggish threats are employed, I wish that a significant someone would have the courage to stand their ground for the Truth no matter what the threatened or potential consequences. (SWATing, IRS investigations, arrest, etc)

      This is a tough time for teleprompter-less Obama. Obama’s anti-individualism comments invoked Sununu’s response that Obama needed to learn how to be an American (just when the BC is being examined), and seemed to bring out a passion so far missing in Romney. Maybe Romney can win in November so the politicians will not have to face an Obama second term. Still, Obama as a lame duck? With two months left before he has to leave office, he won’t be bound by the fear of reelection. After what he said to Putin, Scary.

  16. I saw a very small link to this story yesterday at FoxNews. Couldn’t believe it, but it was not a huge story. Honestly, I didn’t read it because Drudge’s story was so huge.

    • I HOPE LIKE HELL Zullo and Joe kept a bunch of stuff quiet for now – maybe they are doing an “O’Keef” acorn thing. This “9” thing was not exactly a SHOCK, it was already out there. At least when they swiped Debbie Schlussels work on obama’s fake selective service reg., they showed how they proved it was fake through additional investigation. This time we didn’t see anything! No photos of the manual – nothing. The more I think on it the more I get annoyed. BTW – Debbie got justifiably pissed off at the Posse. I don’t blame her a bit. I personally won’t care if I don’t get cited if they find some of my stuff useful – but I haven’t done any expose on the same scale as that selective service registration. That was some good work!

      • DR. C. has the 1968 manual that he got from a FOIA request. He was told there is no earlier manual (but Hawaii may have used its own manual which may or mat not have been based on the same “national” manual). It shows the same page that Mr. Zullo has in the video. It doesn’t look good for Zullo. I speculated over at OCT that when he allegedly heard from Mrs. Lee that #9 was the code for unknown or unstated in 1961, he couldn’t back it up so he used the 1968 manual. I made the argument that maybe the Code was the same in 1961 for #9, and that we don’t know what was actually changed.

        But showing the Code from 1968 and claiming it is from 1961 has landed him in deservedly hot water. If that is what he did, he is, well, I’ll leave my thoughts at that. BTW, Dr. Conspiracy spent his whole career in the field of vital statistics. He admits to having confirmation bias, but I know if he posts something that he got from a FOIA request, it would not be fabricated.

        • Over in my sidebar in the post titled “Hawaii’s fathers race codes” is a link to a Vital Stats (Fed) Natality 1961 summary manual. So, such things did exist. I don’t believe this manual is the same sort that Dr.C and Zullo mentioned – but I think it indicates that there definitely was a manual prior to 1968. There had to have been, AND I recall seeing it referenced in a HI Med Journal – Dr. Bennett, but that has been scrubbed. And by the way – when I first tried to click on the link to that summary doc today? I kept getting the notice that the doc was moved or no longer existed. Works now though. Bottom line the summary manual indicated that a vital stats (instruction/guideline) manual would have definitely been in place in 1961. Hawaii knew it was going to become a state well in advance, and had begun to practice standard gov. vital stats procedures early. They were fully in use by 1960.

          I noticed that Zullo kept saying “1960” rather than “1961”. Humm.

        • Dr. Conspiracy is not a reliable source of information. There are several problems with his claims. He says, for example: “In 1961 Hawaii, for the first time, participated in the National Center of Health Statistics statistical report on births, 1961 Vital Statistics of the US – Volume 1: Natality (VSUS).”

          This is not true. Hawaii participated in the 1960 natality report, which is posted at the CDC website.

          In the document Dr. Conspiracy claims to have obtained through a freedom of information request, it gives separate coding categories for Aleut, Eskimo, Filipino, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian, supposedly used in 1960 and 1961. The 1960 Natality Report says that those classifications were simply lumped together as “other races.” IOW, they wern’t coded separately.

          The 1961 Report specifically says: “Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for
          vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and “other nonwhite.” Dr. Conspiracy’s alleged coding document doesn’t allow for Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian to be combined.

          More problems: the heading on Dr. Conspiracy’s alleged document refers to a “Vital Statistics Programming Branch” … after a google search for this exact phrase, the only results go to Dr. Conspiracy’s site. As for the other organization, the “Division of Data Processing” … this wasn’t formed until 1963 according to a booklet on the history of the National Center for Health Statistics:

          “Effective in September 1963, NCHS was reorganized, with the Division of Vital Statistics becoming one of five operating divisions. This reorganization separated support activities, such as data processing and publication activities, from the substantive vital statistics program operations.”

      • Maybe Mrs. V Lee offered information on the codes in 1961.

  17. Twins were coded together, regardless – although one always had and odd no. The were their own demographic, so to speak. Since the indication is that only the even numbered birthdocs information was collected – why would obama’s BC, an odd numbered document, even have been coded?

    The 1960-1961 summary manual INCLUDES HI, so this shows that HI was in possession of an standardized guide – whatever they call it – on Vital Stats collection and reporting prior to 1960.



    July 17, 2012


    • For more information regarding the analysis of the computerized document:

      “Comprehensive Analysis – Obama LFBC PDF File”


      “IV. Compare Optimized PDF with White House PDF”

      “Layers in the White House PDF Document”

      “The White House PDF image is a composite of many different layers, each containing an image element. When the individual images are all laid on top of one another, analogous to stacking transparencies onto a projector with each image printed on a separate transparency sheet, they create the composite birth certificate image. Below are screenshots of the most important layers.”

      “Figure 12 –Safety paper, form lines, doctor’s signature and most of local registrar signature”

      “Figure 13 –Most of the form data, missing doctor’s signature and last digit of BC#”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: