Monthly Archives: January 2010

Admission of Amendment

 

Hawaii’s Sunshine Law is called UIPA (Uniform Information Practices Act). The government agency which is to oversee that law is the Office of Information Practices (OIP). Their office has attorneys who interpret what the law means and how it applies to specific cases. They advise departments on what their responsibilities are, establish guidelines for procedures and disclosures, act as an advocate for the public to get whatever information is due them, and render official decisions when individuals appeal a department response to a UIPA request.

 

The OIP has a booklet which explains the rules they have set in place for departments to follow when they receive a request for information. Those rules apply to all government agencies – so there are “uniform information practices”, as the title of the law says. Starting on page 30, the booklet describes how an agency or department is to respond to a request.

 

The first step is to determine whether they have the requested record. If they don’t have the record or any part of the record requested they must say so. For any record or part of a record that they DO have, they have to determine whether or not they will release it, following the guidelines. If they can or may release it then they must release it. If they deny access to the record, they have to give their legal justification for doing so. Appendix B in the booklet is a “Response to Requestor” Form that can be used, with check-off boxes to show the process.

 

Sometimes the very existence of a record indicates something a department might want to remain hidden. If there is a legal justification for it to remain hidden they may use a “Glomar response” – an answer such as “The records, if any, are denied”, to say that they cannot reveal whether the requested record exists or not. The OIP issued an official Opinion Letter showing such a response is appropriate where information is specifically protected from disclosure, as for instance the identity of firearm registrants – which is specifically protected from disclosure by statute. Any record which would disclose the identity of a firearm registrant should normally (barring legitimate public concern) be denied with a Glomar response so that confidentiality is not broken.

 

But where the existence of a record doesn’t reveal protected information the agency must say whether or not the record exists, according to OIP Opinion Letter 97-8. A denial of access is an admission that a record exists since it is impossible to deny access to something which does not exist.

 

A person using the alias “Terri K” requested to see any UIPA requests made by President Obama or his representative for access to his vital records in order to amend them, all communications regarding that request, the official response to that request, and any invoices or receipts for fees Obama paid to access or amend his records. Every item requested was denied, according to the official OIP reply to Terri’s appeal of the DOH’s response.

 

Terri K twice asked OIP attorney, Linden Joesting, if it was appropriate to ask for specific amendment processing records and was told both times that it was appropriate – that if the DOH had the records they should give them and if they didn’t have the records they should say so. This confirms the policy which is openly stated in both OIP Opinion Letter 97-8 above and in the OIP’s UIPA Manual. A denial of access to a record is confirmation that the record exists.

 

In addition, a request for “any & all material(s) used as support and as evidence of the information put forth in the President’s vital records” was denied. Again, this is an admission that such materials exist. Evidence beyond the birth certificate itself is only required if there is an amendment, if the original certificate is a late certificate, or if the certificate was originally incomplete and had to be completed by a supplementary report. (Incidentally, none of these would be the case for a hospital birth).

 

Terri K originally made the assumption that there was an amended birth certificate because – in the words of the request to the DOH and OIP –

 

Using simple deductive reasoning, it’s apparent that President Obama amended his birth certificate. On July, 27, 2009, Dr. Fukino told the public that the DoH maintains “original vital records” that verify President Obama’s natural-born citizenship and that he was born in Hawaii. Now the public knows that the President added other vital records to his ‘single’ original long form birth certificate making them plural: “original vital records.”

 

A single document could verify that an individual is a natural-born citizen and born in Hawaii: an original long form birth certificate. For the President, it took more than one. Therefore, it took an amendment to his record and evidential support which is also maintained by the DoH as original vital record(s). You can only make corrections with respect to information relevant to birthplace and/or NBC status by making a UIPA request for access.

 

There are only two pieces of information relevant to natural-born citizenship: birth place and parentage.

 

Amendments were made to this information and Dr. Fukino told the public so on 7/27/09 when she made this statement:

 

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

 

In other words, she said this:

“I…have seen the original vital records…verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

 

The word ‘original’ indicates no new birth certificate was issued, rather the original was marked up with corrections, which is what happens according to statute to ‘amended certificates’.

 

 

Through both words and actions, according to the OIP and DOH Administrative Rules, the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed that the original birth certificate of Barack Obama has been amended.

Admission of An Amendment

Admission of an Amendment

Admission of an Amendment

Admission of Amendment

Hawaii’s Sunshine Law is called UIPA (Uniform Information Practices Act). The government agency which is to oversee that law is the Office of Information Practices (OIP). Their office has attorneys who interpret what the law means and how it applies to specific cases. They advise departments on what their responsibilities are, establish guidelines for procedures and disclosures, act as an advocate for the public to get whatever information is due them, and render official decisions when individuals appeal a department response to a UIPA request.

The OIP has a booklet which explains the rules they have set in place for departments to follow when they receive a request for information. Those rules apply to all government agencies – so there are “uniform information practices”, as the title of the law says. Starting on page 30, the booklet describes how an agency or department is to respond to a request.

The first step is to determine whether they have the requested record. If they don’t have the record or any part of the record requested they must say so. For any record or part of a record that they DO have, they have to determine whether or not they will release it, following the guidelines. If they can or may release it then they must release it. If they deny access to the record, they have to give their legal justification for doing so. Appendix B in the booklet is a “Response to Requestor” Form that can be used, with check-off boxes to show the process.

Sometimes the very existence of a record indicates something a department might want to remain hidden. If there is a legal justification for it to remain hidden they may use a “Glomar response” – an answer such as “The records, if any, are denied”, to say that they cannot reveal whether the requested record exists or not. The OIP issued an official Opinion Letter showing such a response is appropriate where information is specifically protected from disclosure, as for instance the identity of firearm registrants – which is specifically protected from disclosure by statute. Any record which would disclose the identity of a firearm registrant should normally (barring legitimate public concern) be denied with a Glomar response so that confidentiality is not broken.

But where the existence of a record doesn’t reveal protected information the agency must say whether or not the record exists, according to OIP Opinion Letter 97-8. A denial of access is an admission that a record exists since it is impossible to deny access to something which does not exist.

A person using the alias “Terri K” requested to see any UIPA requests made by President Obama or his representative for access to his vital records in order to amend them, all communications regarding that request, the official response to that request, and any invoices or receipts for fees Obama paid to access or amend his records. Every item requested was denied, according to the official OIP reply to Terri’s appeal of the DOH’s response.

Terri K twice asked OIP attorney, Linden Joesting, if it was appropriate to ask for specific amendment processing records and was told both times that it was appropriate – that if the DOH had the records they should give them and if they didn’t have the records they should say so. This confirms the policy which is openly stated in both OIP Opinion Letter 97-8 above and in the OIP’s UIPA Manual. A denial of access to a record is confirmation that the record exists.

In addition, a request for “any & all material(s) used as support and as evidence of the information put forth in the President’s vital records” was denied. Again, this is an admission that such materials exist. Evidence beyond the birth certificate itself is only required if there is an amendment, if the original certificate is a late certificate, or if the certificate was originally incomplete and had to be completed by a supplementary report. (Incidentally, none of these would be the case for a hospital birth).

Terri K originally made the assumption that there was an amended birth certificate because – in the words of the request to the DOH and OIP –

Using simple deductive reasoning, it’s apparent that President Obama amended his birth certificate. On July, 27, 2009, Dr. Fukino told the public that the DoH maintains “original vital records” that verify President Obama’s natural-born citizenship and that he was born in Hawaii. Now the public knows that the President added other vital records to his ‘single’ original long form birth certificate making them plural: “original vital records.”

A single document could verify that an individual is a natural-born citizen and born in Hawaii: an original long form birth certificate. For the President, it took more than one. Therefore, it took an amendment to his record and evidential support which is also maintained by the DoH as original vital record(s). You can only make corrections with respect to information relevant to birthplace and/or NBC status by making a UIPA request for access.

There are only two pieces of information relevant to natural-born citizenship: birth place and parentage.

Amendments were made to this information and Dr. Fukino told the public so on 7/27/09 when she made this statement:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

In other words, she said this:
“I…have seen the original vital records…verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

The word ‘original’ indicates no new birth certificate was issued, rather the original was marked up with corrections, which is what happens according to statute to ‘amended certificates’.

Through both words and actions, according to the OIP and DOH Administrative Rules, the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed that the original birth certificate of Barack Obama has been amended.

Denial of Supporting Evidence

Denial of Supporting Evidence

Denial of Supporting Evidence

Denial of Supporting Evidence

Joesting Counsel

OIP Statements that Request Appropriate, DOH Should Say if They Don’t Have Record
(statement by Terri K)

• On 8/18/09 I asked Linden Joesting, Staff Attorney at the OIP,
if I could request the following from the DoH:

1.) …the blank/voided or ‘unfilled’ forms issued by the Department
of Health that Dr. Fukino saw per her public statement
below, be disclosed OR a list of those forms & types of records.
I would also like included copies of any notations, amendment
notes and stamp impressions that are found on these documents.
If any of the following records I requested are already available
for downloading on the web, please send me direct links to their
location(s). Please let me know if this is not clear or if there is a
more suitable record(s) to be requesting:

2.) …any record of receipt by the DoH for all proof that was
offered and/or used to amend any of the vital records that Dr.
Fukino saw per her public statement below, be disclosed:

3.) …per Dr. Fukino’s public statement on 7/27/09, I would like a
copy of the record OR portion of the record(s) that has the word
‘Amended’ stamped or written and also initialed by the DoH
reviewer. In addition to this I would like a copy of the record or
portion of the record that states what type of information was
amended, when and why. Please provide me electronic copies.

• On 8/18/09 She responded with this:
“You may certainly send this request for records to the Department
of Health. Please note however that you do not need to
reference that the request is for their policy and procedure. A list
simply of the documents would be adequate. If they agency does
not have any such documents they should say so. For example,
Dr. Fukino does not make any reference to an amended vital
record of Barack Obama and therefore there may not be any.
Thank you for your inquiry.

Sincerely,
Linden Joesting
Staff Attorney “

• On 8/18/09 I replied to her with this:
“Thank you. I understand she didn’t make any reference to an
‘amended’ record, however she did make reference to more than
one record “original vital records”(plural). I suppose I understand
that to mean there MUST be an amended record and supportive
material (vital recordS). Otherwise, why would more than one
record need to be seen verifying the President is a natural born
citizen and/or born in Hawaii. A simple original long form birth
certificate would do it….”
“…Could you also tell me if this is a valid request if you haven’t
already answered my earlier email?

1.) I request an electronic copy of the invoice and receipt for the
fee(s) charged to and paid by President Barack Obama, or anyone
claiming to represent him, for amendments made to his vital
records. “

• On 8/18/09 Linden Joesting responded with this:

“You also asked if: Could you also tell me if this is a valid request
if you haven’t already answered my earlier email?
I request an electronic copy of the invoice and receipt for the
fee(s) charged to and paid by President Barack Obama, or anyone
claiming to represent him, for amendments made to his vital
records.

Yes, you may ask for a copy of the invoice and receipt. If the
agency has the documents in electronic form, or can easily convert
the documents into an electronic form, then they may send it
to you electronically. If no amendments were made, there would
not be any such documents and the agency should inform you of
that fact.

Sincerely,
Linden H. Joesting
Staff Attorney“

Breitbart Refusal

Breitbart Refusal

Two Year Storage for UIPA Requests

Two Year Storage for UIPA Requests

Red Flags in Hawaii

Red Flags in Hawaii

People are asking how so many terrorist red flags could be overlooked by so many.  The same way these “birther” red flags were not only overlooked but ridiculed:

1.       DOH Director Fukino  illegally hid until Nov 2009 the DOH Administrative Rules showing that election officials could have received a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate without his permission. The DOH has said they can’t release any records without Obama’s permission. But HRS 338-18(a) allows state laws and DOH rules to govern the disclosure of vital records, and the current rules -Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) -would allow any election officer transacting the placement of Obama’s name on the ballot to receive a certified copy.

 

2.       The DOH has falsely said that HRS 338-18 prohibits disclosure of government processing records. There are 2 kinds of records – records of the vital events themselves, and records of the government’s handling (  http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0001.htm) of those records.

Certificates are the record of the vital events. HRS 338-18(a) says that information about the actual birth, death, marriage, and divorce events may only be released according to the provisions set by law or Department of Health rules, thus referring everyone to the DOH Administrative Rules to see how information on actual certificates may be disclosed and to whom. Far from barring “any disclosure” as claimed by the DOH, current Administrative Rules allow a non-certified abbreviated copy of a birth (Chapter 8b, 2.5B), marriage (Ch 8b, 2.8C), or death (Ch8b, 2.6C) certificate to be released to anyone who asks for it. However, a public statement of where someone was born – such as Fukino’s July 27, 2009 statement about Obama – is not allowed by the rules (Ch 8b, 2.1A).

All other records are public, except that neither direct viewing nor certified copies are allowed unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest. Non-certified copies, abstracts,  and disclosure of information from the documents are not prohibited – which, according to Hawaii’s “Sunshine Law” (UIPA) means they must be disclosed upon request, except for certain exemptions, such as for information having privacy interest that outweighs the public interest in disclosure: date of birth, gender, and address .

 

Since a damaging disclosure of records processing was made in September (see #3), The DOH has been denying access to these records by claiming that ANY DISCLOSURE is forbidden.

 

3.       Though ridiculing “birthers” publicly, the DOH has PRIVATELY confirmed Obama’s online COLB’s as forgeries – a fact the DOH has known since the beginning. Because processing information is subject to disclosure, the DOH was forced in Sept 2009 to reveal that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended  (OIP interpretation) and that Obama or his representative has paid a fee to have his certificate amended at the very time he was considering a run for the presidency. Amendments must be noted on the certificate (Ch 8b, 3.1), so the DOH has known this entire time that both the Factcheck and Fight the Smears COLB’s are forgeries, since they have no amendment noted.

When asked point-blank on Feb 22, 2010 whether the denial of access confirmed the existence of Obama’s amendment documents, the OIP refused to refute that understanding, saying (after 2 e-mails asking clarification) that they were too busy to address the question.

 

4. The combination of certificate number and filing date on the Factcheck COLB is not possible. The DOH has confirmed that the certificate number is assigned by them when they file the certificate. Observed certificate numbers corroborate this as well, and so does page 232 of the CDC’s 1961 Natality Report. The Factcheck COLB says it was filed at the DOH 3 days before the Nordkye twins’ certificates but has a later number than theirs. The certificate number is the same on a COLB as it is on an original, long-form BC, so it makes no difference that the Nordykes’ are long-forms and Factcheck’s a COLB. The DOH has refused to release the certificate number for Obama even though they are required by UIPA to do so.

 

5.       Every government agency in Hawaii contacted thus far has explicitly denied that they have a responsibility to report known forgery and/or have refused to report suspected forgery to law enforcement.  This includes the Department Of Health, Office of Information Practices (OIP), lieutenant governor’s office, and every member of Hawaii’s House and Senate. Janice Okubo of the DOH seems to have stated that law forbids her to disclose ANYTHING about a birth certificate– even that it’s a critical, very public forgery. The Ombudsman’s Office has said they don’t investigate crimes and only report evidence they uncover themselves. See no evil…

 

6.       The amendment made to Obama’s birth certificate renders it insufficient evidence for legal purposes.  Minor administrative errors (such as typos) don’t remove the prima facie evidentiary value of a birth certificate, but such no-fault errors don’t result in a fee (Ch 8b 3.5C, 3.11, 3.1,  & HRS 338-17) and Obama was charged a fee – as the DOH confirmed again on March 23, 2010. Legal name changes also don’t affect the evidentiary value, but the lieutenant governor’s office has confirmed that there has been no legal name change for anyone named Obama, Dunham,  Soetoro, or Sutoro.

 

7.       Kapiolani Hospital received a letter signed by Obama on White House stationery and with raised seal claiming Obama was born there, even though that could only be true if Obama’s amendment contradicted the doctor’s testimony. If he had been born in a Hawaii hospital the hospital itself would have been responsible for the content on the birth certificate and the DOH responsible for any clerical typos. The only way Obama would be charged for an amendment is:

             a)       if he or his representative claimed to have filled out the certificate themselves and erred, or

             b)      if Obama claimed the doctor’s testimony was wrong.

 

8.       The DOH has broken Hawaii law to make rule changes (see July 11 addendum at bottom) that would protect Obama.  In mid-June of 2009 the DOH stated that they will no longer issue long-form birth certificates. This is in direct violation of the current rules, without following HRS 91-3 mandates for an open process for rule changes – the first of several such violations within the past year. 

 

9.       Fukino stated on July 27, 2009 that Obama’s records verify his birth in Hawaii, but Hawaii law forbids her to conclude that, since all the DOH has is legal hearsay. According to PHR Chapter 8b and HRS 338-17, only a judicial or administrative person or group can evaluate the accuracy of the claims when an amended document is presented as evidence. Obama has had many, many opportunities to present his birth certificate as evidence in lawsuits. He has refused – even going so far as rescinding military orders rather than risk a judge seeing his birth certificate. There is no process by which Obama would present his records to Fukino as evidence.

 

10.       Having made the illegal statement, Fukino refused to obey UIPA which required her to release the documents on which her statement was based.

 

11.   The DOH has deleted documents required to be stored for at least 2 years. The DOH says it no longer has the UIPA request or invoices showing Obama’s birth certificate was amended. The DOH’s own “Rules of Practice & Procedure”  (11-1-30) say that documents must be stored as long as the case can be contested –  August 2011 in this case. (Note: the invoices have met their retention period if they were created in 2006 so the HDOH would be correct to not have them any longer.)

12.   Fukino averted discipline against herself by promoting the OIP director, who was replaced by the attorney who has designed the DOH’s deceptive responses. Six days after Leo Donofrio’s  blog said he would ask OIP Director Tsukiyama for disciplinary action against Fukino and Okubo for their deception, Tsukiyama resigned  from the OIP to take a promotion to a company on whose board of directors Fukino sits. He granted Cathy Takase’s request to have control of all DOH matters and asked her to replace him.

Now OIP is leaving HRS 338-18 rulings up to the DOH and refuses to clarify what kinds of responses qualify as Glomar responses. All DOH responses contain deceptions #1&2, including disobeying their own rules for non-certified abbreviated copies of birth, marriage, and death certificates.  They deny that documents exist which are required by law, such as descriptions of their forms,  procedures,  and instructions which are mandated in HRS 91, etc.. (Note: the retention period for the 1961 lists is past, so the HDOH is correct not to have them.)

13. Apparently in response to this blog post and a request for a legislative investigation of these matters, Hawaii State Senator Will Espero has introduced a bill that would allow the OIP to label people who ask too many questions as “vexatious requestors” who are then blacklisted from access to government records for 2 years. The net effect of the bill would be to overturn UIPA. They also want to fine “vexatious requestors”…

14. The DOH is falsifying the communication logs in e-mails to frame the requestor as what Cathy Takase calls “mentally ill” – thus fit to label as a “vexatious requestor” and blacklist for 2 years.

15. The DOH claims that original records required to be retained permanently (original birth index and index of foreign births) don’t exist. Either they are lying or they have illegally destroyed permanent records.

Red flags. This information has been given to every lawmaker in Hawaii, the OIP, DOH, Ombudsman’s office, HI lieutenant governor’ and governor’s offices, Nebraska’s US attorney (who says they won’t take reports from citizens), and Hawaii’s director of the Department of Public Safety, as well as to multiple news organizations.  The FBI thrice said they don’t investigate document fraud. All refused to act. Red flags.

 

 

 

Red Flags in Hawaii

Red Flags in Hawaii