I’m posting this as a PDF because it’s so much more readable. Sorry for the extra click required.
To help make navigation easier I’ve typed up this.
The title of the PDF has to change every time I update it, so don’t worry about what number it is. =)
To find the most recent postings, click on the most recent month on the sidebar to the right Those are the chronological order of the posts I post, so any new major post will always be at the top of the most recent month. Comments are posted with whatever post they are in response to. To be alerted to new comments, you can subscribe and then you will get e-mail notifications of new comments.
Welcome, World Net Daily readers. If you’re looking for the article about the Hawaii Democratic Party refusing to certify Obama’s eligibility, it is here. I hope you’ll stay and look around. =)
An index to the subject matter on this blog is here.
In an affidavit filed in the Strunk case to see passport records for Obama’s mother, a claim was made that passport applications through 1968 were destroyed in the 1980’s after the retention period was changed from 100 years to 15 years for 5-year passports and 20 years for 10-year passports.
In 1981 the GAO published recommendations for the passport office which have been used to support the claims in the Strunk case, because the GAO did recommend that retention periods be shortened. But the report actually reveals things that are VERY problematic to the claims in the Passport Office’s alleged “cable” which claimed the passport applications had been destroyed.
I’ve posted this file as a PDF because I discovered that the links are still clickable but it’s a heckuva lot more readable as a PDF than in the WordPress format – especially with the color highlighting.
HDOH Response to Request for Hand-written 1961 Birth Index
(Note: This is from the communications history so first e-mails appear last. A Notice to Requester was attached to their latest e-mail)
—– Original Message —–
From: hdohinfo
To: (redacted)
Cc: Linden.H.Joesting@hawaii.gov
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 6:25 PM
Subject: RE: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10
Aloha Ms. (redacted),
This is in response to your request sent April 8, 2010. The department has no records responsive to your request as there are no “original copies or microfilms” of birth index data from 1961. The “original copies or microfilms” from which birth index data is compiled consist of vital statistics records that are restricted from disclosure under Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-18. All birth index data is stored electronically, therefore, birth index data is available to the public in the form of pages generated by a computer.
The department can mail you all birth index data from 1961. We require a prepayment of $98.75 to cover our costs in order to send you the records. Please see the attached Notice to Requestor form OIP 4 (rev. 8/29/08) for a breakdown of the costs to provide you with the records.
If you would like to receive the computer printed pages of birth index data, please send your cashiers check, certified check or money order to:
State Department of Health
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Issuance/Vital Statistics Section/UIPA Request
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
Hawaii Department of Health
Public Information Office staff
Send mail to:
State Department of Health
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Issuance/Vital Statistics Section/UIPA Request
Honolulu, HI 96801
hdohinfo@doh.hawaii.gov
________________________________________
From: Nellie
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 5:08 AM
To: hdohinfo
Subject: Re: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10
Aloha!
VR-1 Birth index (p 21 on retention schedule)
VDR-1 Delayed BC Index (p. 22 on retention schedule)
VDR-6 COHB Index (p 23 on retention schedule)
VDR-10 Index to certificates of foreign birth (p 19 on retention schedule)
I’ve enclosed the retention schedules so you can see what I’m talking about. There should be either original copies or microfilms. Since these are from 1961 they would not be computerized. I’m asking for electronic copies of the original or microfilmed records, including everything that was authorized for public release before UIPA was passed in 1988 (name, birth date, and certificate number – which were public since at least 1977; see p. 11 of OIP Opinion Letter 90-23 ) since UIPA was not intended to close any previously-authorized disclosures (see Opinion Letter 90-04 (page 6 ) . Any other information may be redacted if its disclosure was not authorized before 1988 and an exemption to disclosure applies)
I just noticed that VDR-10 begins in 1981 so there would not be any records for 1961. My apologies for that mistake.
Thanks!
Nellie
—– Original Message —–
From: hdohinfo
To: (redacted)
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 6:00 PM
Subject: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10
Aloha Ms. (redacted):
We are unfamiliar with what you mean by VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6 and VDR-10. Could you please clarify your request?
Thank you.
Hawaii Department of Health
Public Information Office staff
Send mail to:
State Department of Health
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Issuance/Vital Statistics Section/UIPA Request
Honolulu, HI 97801
hdohinfo@doh.hawaii.gov
________________________________________
From: Nellie
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:31 PM
To: Okubo, Janice S.
Subject: UIPA Request – VR-1, VDR-1, VDR-6, VDR-10
2-3-10
Aloha.
Pursuant to UIPA, I request an electronic copy of the microfilm for the birth and death indexes (VR-1, VDR-1, & VDR-6, & VDR-10) for 1961. The records retention schedule says that these must retained permanently.
Thank you.
Nellie
________________________________________
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG – http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3069 – Release Date: 08/13/10 18:34:00
The Great Birth Index Fiasco
Back in February I requested to see, among other things, the hand-written birth index for 1961 (or microfilms of the hand-written index), which existed in 1980 and was required to be retained permanently. The HI State Archivist confirmed that the HDOH should have the document, but the HDOH said they didn’t have it. The entire history of that request is here.
The concluding response the HDOH gave was a claim that they did not have the handwritten 1961 birth index but that they could print the computer-generated 1961 birth index at a cost of $98.75, which I should send if I wanted them to send the record. They enclosed a Notice to Requester which outlined the reason for the specific cost (which included 4 15-minute periods for an office worker to “segregate” records, in addition to an hour to search for the record). The fine print of the Notice to Requester said that all requester obligations for the request had to be fulfilled within 20 business days or the agency would consider the request abandoned. Because I had never made a request for the computer-generated birth index there were no obligations for me to fulfill. The HDOH was simply telling me what it would cost to fill the request if I chose to make it.
On July 29th I chose to make that request. I sent an e-mail saying that I would be sending a money order for $98.75 in order to get the computer-generated 1961 birth index and asking if I could have someone pick it up at their office on Thursday, Aug 5th, if the money order was in their office by Mon, Aug 2. I also sent a hand-written letter officially requesting the computer-generated birth index, together with a copy of the Notice to Requester on which the cost had been stated and a money order for $98.75. My mail delivery confirmation showed that the written request and money order was in the HDOH office at 6:08AM on Aug 4th. (I’ve mistakenly quoted it as 6:02AM elsewhere, including to the HDOH).
On Monday, Aug 2 I received an e-mail from the HDOH saying that my e-mail request had been marked by their IT Dept as being possible spam; I should re-send. I did not re-send because my question was moot by then and I had already sent the paper request and money order anyway.
On Aug 3rd Mark Niesse of the AP asked the HDOH for copies of the last 3 requests for Obama’s records. Mine was one of those 3 requests. My e-mail account name was not redacted from the records the HDOH gave Niesse; he contacted me via Facebook to see if he could interview me for an article he was working on. (I did not respond to him until after the article ran.) On Aug 4th (while my paper request and money order was in their office) Niesse interviewed Janice Okubo, who told him that they offer the computer-generated 1961 birth index for $98.75 but nobody had sent in any money yet and they were asking the AG for a ruling on whether they should continue to “offer” that. She said that Obama is in their 1961 birth index and they allow the public to view index records in their office.
So I have proof that my e-mail request for the computer-generated 1961 birth index had arrived in their office on July 29th and a paper request and money order had arrived in their office by the start of the day on Aug 4th – the very day when Janice Okubo told Mark Niesse that they offer the 1961 birth index for $98.75 (the amount of my money order). IOW, I have proof that I had my request and money order for the full amount in the HDOH office while they were still “offering” the 1961 birth index.
Niesse’s article wasn’t actually published until Saturday, Aug 7th. In response to Okubo’s public statement in that article that they hadn’t received any money from anybody, I contacted Niesse to find out when he had interviewed Okubo and found that it was during the workday on Aug 4th.
Because I was concerned about how Niesse was able to find out my last name when I only use the name “Nellie” in my communications with the HDOH, I also e-mailed a request to see any UIPA responses the HDOH had sent out containing a request by me. They sent me a cover letter and enclosed their response to Niesse’s request, including my July 29th request – flagged as possible spam but with almost the entire text visible.
I sent the HDOH a Cease and Desist letter , asking them to remove all references to my last name from their contacts with me and from the UIPA responses where they have referenced my last name. They have ignored my request, as their latest response to me contained my last name.
I also contacted the HDOH and after a series of calls and workers was told they couldn’t find a record of my request; they didn’t know what had happened to it but I should contact hdohinfo. So I did. Eventually they told me in an Aug 13th e-mail that they were sending back my money order because I had abandoned my request since I hadn’t responded to the Notice to Requester within 20 days. And sure enough, they sent my money order back.
I reminded them that the Notice to Requester had been sent to me to tell me that I COULD request the computer-generated 1961 birth index, since the request I HAD actually made (for the handwritten index) could not be filled because that permanent record no longer exists (they claim). I asked them exactly when they say they received my request for a computer-generated 1961 birth index, since it had not been 20 business days since my first contact with their office requesting that particular record. At first they insisted that they had already answered all my questions so I made an actual UIPA Request for a copy of my request for the computer-generated 1961 birth index, including the date that it arrived in their office.
They had already sent back the money order that was included with my paper request. They had replied to my e-mailed request, asking me to re-send it. And they had sent copies of my e-mailed request to both Mark Niesse and myself in response to UIPA requests. That’s 4 different times that the HDOH showed that they had my request in their office – the e-mail request received by July 29 and the snail-mail request by Aug 4th.
On the 10th business day they e-mailed to say there were no records responsive to my request – that they had no record of my request for the computer-generated 1961 birth index. What they had acknowledged 4 different times before they now claim they don’t have.
They’ve also said they only collect birth data in 5-year increments so they can’t release the 1961 birth index. So in the same request as in the last paragraph I also requested “to see any communications to or from your office regarding what changed from the time you told me that you could release the computer-generated birth index for 1961 and now, as well as any duly-passed law or regulation which says that index data may only be released in increments of 5 years.”
No records responsive to my request. (It is worth noting that their MARRIAGE INDEX is in a 6-year increment for the years 1960-65 only, based upon copies of birth index pages they sent in response to a request)
I’ve also asked to see their communications asking for a ruling by the Hawaii Attorney General . They responded that there are no records responsive to my request. Compare this with the AG Administrative Rules’ procedures to amend rules (see Subchapter 4 ) or to ask for a declaratory judgment (see Subchapter 5 ) from the AG – which clearly require written communications.
To summarize:
2. The HDOH has changed their claims to say they can only release index data in increments of 5 years. But there are no laws or regulations which say that and they have the physical capability of printing whatever they want. Disclosure of the exact year of birth is apparently not forbidden, because according to Niesse’s article, Okubo already told him that Obama is in their 1961 birth index. HRS 338-18 requires index data to be released to the public.
3. Janice Okubo stated in a public interview for an article that was published nationally that they were asking the Hawaii Attorney General for a ruling on the implementation and/or interpretation of laws and rules – a process which is required to be done in writing. But the HDOH claims there are no communications to or from their office regarding why their “offer” of the 1961 birth index no longer exists.
4. All this is done to keep from having to release index data they claim is already accessible to the public at their office. They have stated that all index data is really about Obama. They have stated that Obama is in the 1961 birth index. But they appear to be lying and/or illegally destroying records, as well as disobeying HRS 338-18, UIPA, and their own Administrative Rules in order to try to avoid having to put their money where their mouth is.
I give the complete details about this case because it is representative of a whole host of similar experiences I have had with the HDOH, as those who have read the blog are aware. Sadly, this seems to be typical fare from this government agency. And nobody in Hawaii’s government, media, or law enforcement will hold them accountable for it.
But reasonable people all over this country are asking, “Why? Why so much unethical and illegal behavior to hide the public index records they say they’ve already confirmed?”
No Communications with AG
—– Original Message —–
From: hdohinfo
To: (redacted)
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 8:29 PM
Subject: RE: UIPA Request: AG Communications
Aloha Ms. (redacted):
The department has no records responsive to your request.
Hawaii Department of Health
Public Information Office staff
Send mail to:
State Department of Health
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Issuance/Vital Statistics Section/UIPA Request
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 97801
8-9-10
Aloha!
An AP article by Mark Niesse published Saturday, Aug 7, states the following: “The state’s offer to hand over index data may not last. The department is asking the state attorney general for a ruling on whether it should give out that information, Okubo said.”
Pursuant to UIPA I request to see the documents on which Okubo relied to make the public announcement that the HDOH is asking the AG for a ruling on whether it should obey UIPA and HRS 338-18(b)(13)(d).
Specifically I request to see the HDOH’s communications to the AG’s office on this issue.
Thank you.
Nellie
HDOH Denies Having My Request (which they had acknowledged 4 times before)
(Note: I have redacted my last name from the HDOH’s salutation to me, which the HDOH included even after I had written a cease and desist letter asking them to stop addressing me by my last name since the alias I have chosen is my first name only.)
—– Original Message —–
From: hdohinfo
To: (redacted)
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 9:00 PM
Subject: RE: My Order
Aloha Ms. (redacted):
There are no records responsive to your request.
Hawaii Department of Health
Public Information Office staff
Send mail to:
State Department of Health
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Issuance/Vital Statistics Section/UIPA Request
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 97801
Pursuant to UIPA I request to see my request for the computer-generated birth index for 1961, including the date that it was received in your office.
Pursuant to UIPA I also request to see any communications to or from your office regarding what changed from the time you told me that you could release the computer-generated birth index for 1961 and now, as well as any duly-passed law or regulation which says that index data may only be released in increments of 5 years.
 | judyw on Update |
 | porterville63139 on Update |
| Donna Tharge on Update | |
 | neconservative on Update |
 | Patricia on Update |
 | tmbj1064 on Update |
 | butterdezillion on MCPD Responses Indicate Fuddy… |
Butterdezillion's Blog 