GOVERNMENT QUOTES IN RESPONSE TO KNOWLEDGE OF FORGERY:
“If the Certification of Live Birth for Obama that was posted on Factcheck was a forgery the Hawaii Department of Health would have reported it.”
I heard that statement so many times. Now let me post the answers I received to the direct question of whether a department who knows a forgery has been committed is responsible to report it to law enforcement.
From the Office of Information Practice’s Acting Director, Cathy Takase: “ Should that circumstance ever occur, OIP would then determine what its responsibilities might be. ”
From the Department of Health, asked on 12-11 whether “If it wasn’t the same certificate number you would have reported it to law enforcement and spoken negatively about the online images, right?”:
Okubo’s reply: “A response to your request was already provided” (referring to “If you are asking for verification of information contained in a birth record, state law prohibits the department from disclosing any vital statistics records or information contained in such records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record, or as otherwise allowed by statute or administrative rule.”)
She seems to be saying that the rules prevent her from speaking negatively about what she knows is a forgery, either publicly or to law enforcement.
From the Ombudsman’s Office: “Additionally, our office does not investigate complaints alleging criminal conduct or illegal behavior, as such matters are within the purview of law enforcement authorities.”
I responded by asking whether they would report known forgery (along with other law-breaking) to law enforcement. The response:
Please be informed that we did not receive your email of December 23, 2009 until you forwarded it to us on January 7, 2010.
At this time, we have nothing to report to law enforcement authorities in your case. Generally speaking, if in the course of our investigation of a complaint we uncover evidence of criminal conduct, we would cease our investigation and refer the matter to law enforcement authorities.
When we receive a complaint that alleges criminal conduct by someone, such as in your case, we do not investigate the complaint and instead refer the complainant to law enforcement authorities. As the person in possession of evidence of alleged criminal conduct, the complainant is the one who should contact appropriate law enforcement authorities. If you are in possession of evidence of criminal conduct, we suggest that you contact law enforcement authorities directly.
/s/ ROBIN K. MATSUNAGA
Ombudsman, State of Hawaii
The letter I originally sent to the Ombudsman’s Office is Addendum #1 at the bottom of this.
From HI State Sen Denny Coffman (when notified that the DOH had indirectly confirmed that Factcheck and Fight the Smears posted forged COLB’s):
Please try calling the Lt. Governor since he is in charge of Admin Rules
(No reference at all to the DOH’s admission of Factcheck’s forgery. The letter I sent to every member of Hawaii’s House and Senate, governor, and lieutenant governor is Addendum #2 at the bottom of this page.)
From the Lt Governor’s office (when notified that the DOH had indirectly confirmed that FActcheck and FTS posted forged COLB’s):
“We do not have the legal authority to initiate an investigation as to whether the Department of Health is complying with specific Admin Rules.”
(Again, no reference at all to the DOH’s admission of Factcheck’s forgery)
Addendum #1 – Letter sent to Ombudsman’s Office, forwarded to every member of Hawaii House and Senate, Lt Gov. and Governor’s offices:
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:55 PM
Subject: Request for Investigation
On Aug 18, 2009 a person going under the alias of Terri K. submitted UIPA requests to the Department of Health. After working with the OIP (Appeal #10-10, initiated on Sept 4, 2009) Terri was able to receive a proper response from the DOH, which revealed that President Obama’s birth certificate has been amended. It wasn’t until the DOH was forced to publish their Administrative Rules online as required by law that the implications of that amendment could be seen.
First and foremost, it tells us that both the Factcheck and Fight the Smears COLB’s posted online are forgeries, since amendments must be noted on the certificate and neither posting contained note of the amendment. Both Dr. Fukino and Ms Okubo would have immediately identified them as such.
This is problematic, since every federal and state lawmaker I have contacted has responded to my concerns regarding President Obama’s eligibility by saying that the Hawaii Department of Health had confirmed the genuineness of the online COLB’s. Knowing the COLB’s were forgeries, Fukino and Okubo both made positive statements about them, inviting public officials in the course of their duties to rely upon them, which is a misdemeanor. If their public statements qualify as an ENDORSEMENT of the online COLB’s (as both my senators and representative concluded), it would constitute the Class B felony of forgery.
In addition, both Fukino and Okubo made public statements implying that anyone who questioned the online COLB’s was a nut-case who wouldn’t accept ANY evidence offered. Considering what they knew at the time, those statements were defamatory and could perhaps rise to the level of slander.
Especially since it also appears that the amendment made to Obama’s birth certificate disqualifies it from being prima facie evidence. The only amendments which don’t remove the probative value of a birth certificate are those issued by court order or by a legal name change decree. Court-ordered amendments are done when the original information submitted is proven to be fraudulent or in the course of adoptions – in which case the amendment never registers on a birth certificate because a new birth certificate is created. The lieutenant governor’s office responded to my UIPA request saying that there are no name change decrees for anybody with the name Obama, Soetoro, or Sutoro.
Legally, then, what is on file at the Hawaii DOH is very probably inconclusive for evidentiary purposes. The truth of what is contained in the documents can only be determined by a judicial or administrative body or person to whom the certificate is presented for evidence. There have been numerous opportunities for Mr. Obama to present his documents as evidence. In at least 8 separate lawsuits seeking to compel him to document his presidential eligibility, counsel for Mr. Obama has argued that the plaintiff lacked standing. In one case, Obama repealed military orders rather than submit his documents for investigation. In another case he asked the judge to take note of the Factcheck COLB and Fukino’s statements – himself inviting the judge to rely on a document he knew was forged (again, either a misdemeanor or a Class 2 felony). Mr. Obama has refused to present his documents to the proper authorities as evidence. There is no procedure by which he would submit his documents to Dr Fukino as evidence.
It is highly likely that Obama’s records in the EVVE System would show a “void flag” – that his record was not legally valid, making Fukino’s statements even more suspect. On two separate occasions in the past year, traffic cops have tried to do a simple check on Obama in their system. Access was denied and they got in trouble for trying. Who does this nation allow to be ABOVE law enforcement scrutiny? Seems to me Nixon was rightly ousted for attempting to be above the law.
So we have at least 3 potential crimes committed by both Fukino and Okubo, so far.
But there is more. In the course of covering up those potential crimes, the DOH has engaged in illegal and/or unethical behavior as well. I’ll only mention a few of the most blatant instances here.
1) They changed their administrative rules regarding the issuance of copies of original birth certificates, without going through the legally-required amendment process. It also appears from http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html that they are allowing Certificates of Hawaiian Birth to be “amended” (via conversion to a late certificate) even though “Public Health Rules” Chapter 8b, 3.6 says that late birth certificates may only be amended via court order or name change decree. I’ve requested clarification from Alvin Onaka but 17 business days later I’ve still received no response from his office at all.
2) They publicly stated repeatedly that they could not reveal ANY information from a birth certificate even though HRS 338-18 specifically requires index data to be published, and “Public Health Regulations”, Chapter 8b (the current administrative rules for the DOH) says that a government agency acting on behalf of the registrant to effect a transaction (such as placement on a ballot) may receive a certified copy of a birth certificate.
3) They have deleted the UIPA records requests sent by Terri K. UIPA requests are subject to appeal for up to 2 years and are considered public records. The DOH is aware that I know the Factcheck COLB is forged. I have been privately urging them to come clean on it. For them to destroy these documents is an act of bad faith, perhaps even obstruction of justice, since they knew that everything they’ve done is likely to be investigated either by law enforcement, by you, or at the very least by the OIP for possible disciplinary action.
4) They refuse to answer whether they have received my UIPA requests or not. This is significant because I and my colleagues have waited the 10 business days to receive responses to multiple requests, multiple times from both the DOH and the OIP – only to hear that our requests were “lost”. Given the already-documented deleting of government records in #3, it is reasonable for me to believe that the records they “lost” may have actually been deleted. In any event, there is good reason for me to want confirmation that my requests were received. I’ve been requesting “Read” receipts for my e-mails. The first 2 were sent, but ever since then Okubo has been clicking “No” instead of “Yes” when asked if she will send me a “Read” receipt. When I asked her why she won’t tell me she got my e-mail she said my requests are a low priority. It takes no more time to click “Yes” than to click “No”. Time is clearly not the issue. Somebody needs to hear her say the real reason.
5) Shortly after Terri K received her response from the DOH she posted online regarding UIPA. The DOH was flooded with requests. OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama immediately decided to give OIP guidance to the DOH – by Cathy Takase, who promptly began to deny requests similar to the one Terri had rightly received a response to (with the help of OIP attorney Linden Joesting). Within 2 weeks OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama had resigned to take a huge promotion to the corporation on which Dr. Fukino sits as a Director. He verbally asked Cathy Takase to become Director in his stead. She appointed herself to handle all the OIP appeals concerning the DOH – so now she writes all the DOH answers to UIPA requests and then judges whether she answered correctly. To my civilian eye it looks suspiciously like Takase was appointed to do damage control after Joesting’s diligence had accidentally revealed DOH abetting forgery, with Fukino making Tsukiyama an offer he couldn’t refuse, allowing Takase to be rewarded with a promotion for her efforts to obfuscate.
6) They are refusing requests they are required to fulfill – for records required to be made public, such as index data, department rules and training materials, documents used to make public announcements, etc. I am enclosing one such request that I made – for a non-certified abbreviated copy of President Obama’s birth certificate, as is to be provided to anybody who asks for it, according to “Public Health Rules” Chapter 8b, 2,5(B)(2). Okubo tried to tell me the section I cited is about index records, when the heading clearly talks about “Copies of Birth Certificates”. When this was pointed out to her, she replied that she had already answered my request.
7) They are treating records requests involving President Obama differently than other requests. A colleague sent two requests for index records on the same day. One was for Kelly Dunham, the other for somebody unrelated to Obama. She got an immediate appropriate response for the person not related to Obama. For Kelly Dunham she got an immediate “We don’t have time to answer this so wait another 2 weeks”, followed by over 2 weeks of waiting. Eventually she got index data for 2 vital events involving Kelly Dunham. I know that even though we have Fourteenth Amendment “Equal Protection”, some people are “more equal” than others – especially those who threaten lawsuits or worse. It has now been documented that Obama’s lawyers have threatened Chrysler execs and any media entities who would report on his birth certificate issue. To be truthful, I fear what both Fukino and Okubo have been told through all this. I have requested any records related to communications the DOH has received from Obama or his representatives. Apparently that was one of the requests that got “lost”. (cough)
8) When I told the OIP that the DOH had indirectly confirmed that Factcheck and Fight the Smears had posted forgeries, and asked whether they had a duty to report forgery, Cathy Takase first replied that it was only a hypothetical question because they’ve never had that situation, but that they’d have to figure that out if it ever happened. When I responded that I was telling her that a forgery had occurred, asked her to show me if I was misunderstanding something, and asked if she was going to report it or what my next step should be, she totally ignored those questions. The OIP and DOH deal with vital records. When you realize that 4 of the 9-11 hijackers were registered to vote, and when you realize that one fraudulent birth certificate can set a nation on fire… it seems to me that we should expect a higher standard of vigilance from the people who keep our records. The planned Millennium terrorist attacks didn’t happen because one government worker on the Canadian border was vigilant.
I reported some of the illegal activities of the DOH to every member of the Hawaii House and Senate, as well as the lieutenant governor and governor. One legislator responded. Denny Coffman told me to call the lieutenant governor. I contacted the lieutenant governor’s office, asking if he could investigate. After repeated attempts to speak with someone on the phone and unanswered e-mails they informed me that they can’t investigate. “Have a nice day”, they said. That is a summary of Hawaii’s vigilance.
I’m asking for an investigation, and I’m hoping someone in Hawaii loves the rule of law enough to answer the call. Please contact me if you need more information, and please let me know what course of action you intend to take.
Addendum #2 Letter originally sent to every member of Hawaii House and Senate, Lt. Gov, and Governor’s Office
Note: The DOH has since changed their answer to Donofrio’s UIPA request to say that they do have documents for Obama’s birth which were in existence by August 12, 1961. However, on or around Nov 5th the Administrative Rules were published which exposed that amendments must be noted on the certificates.
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 12:13 PM
Subject: Request for Investigation
Dear Senator Baker:
A matter with serious inational mplications has come to my attention that I believe requires your immediate attention.
Administrative rules for departments and agencies in Hawaii are required to be made public – by having them for public viewing at the Lieutenant Governor’s office and county clerks’ offices, by posting on the internet, and by making copies available to the public on request with a copy/mailing fee.
Not only are the DOH administrative rules not available to the public as required by law, the DOH refuses to answer questions about their practices.
In January of 2005 Public Health Regulations “Rules of Practice and Procedure” was repealed and replaced by Administrative Rules. Each office was to adopt their own chapters showng the new rules using a detailed process requiring public notification of all the proposed rules and/or changes to them, public hearings, and a system of checks and balances within the Hawaii government itself. For most offices, the rules are posted online, containing the dates that the hearings were announced, when the rules were approved, and when they were posted.
The vital statistics department doesn’t have its rules published. Looking at http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/admrules/default.aspx , all that is said is that they are converting from Public Health Regulations Chapters 8, 8a, and 8b and that changes are in process. Chapters 117, 120, and 123 are specifically listed as in the process of being replaced, involving foreign births and adoptions. However, when looking for proposed changes at http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/admrulechange/default.aspx Chapter 117, 120, and 123 are not listed. I e-mailed Fukino’s and Onaka’s offices asking to see the proposed changes. I got no response at all. So Dr. Alvin Onaka’s office currently has no administrative rules that it publicly admits to having.
At least one person asked to see the administrative rules over 2 months ago. Another will be contacting the OIP on Thursday regarding the DOH refusal to answer her request for information that is, by law, supposed to be available to the public even without anyone asking to see it.
In June the Department of Hawaiian Homelands changed their requirements regarding proof of Hawaiian birth. This came immediately after World Net Daily published an article saying that a COLB is not even accepted by the DHHL as proof of a Hawaiian birth. Shortly after that article the DHHL said they didn’t need copies of original long-form birth certificates and the DOH said they no longer print certified copies of long-form birth certificates. They also switched the title on their CertificaTION of Live Birth so that the same document now says CertifiCATE of Live Birth.
I e-mailed the Attorney General to ask what procedures were followed to make those changes in administrative policy. I asked him to make sure that all e-mails regarding this subject be saved and an investigation be initiated. I never heard back from AG Mark Bennett.
Later, when I saw for myself the law detailing how administrative changes must be made, I e-mailed Onaka and Fukino to ask when the hearing for those specific changes were announced publicly, when the hearing was held, and when the changes were approved. I have yet to hear from either regarding those issues.
For over a year now, Chiyome Fukino and Janice Okubo have answered all requests for information regarding Obama’s birth records by saying they are not allowed to say anything because of confidentiality issues. When Attorney Leo Donofrio and his colleague read the UIPA text saying that all index data must be available to the public, they began to make specific UIPA requests. One day after a request for an amended original birth certificate Fukino made a public announcement regarding Obama’s birth records – an announcement that Okubo revealed was approved by Attorney General Mark Bennett. Responses by Janice Okubo to World Net Daily indicated that the release of the information was not authorized by Obama, since the DOH was still claiming they couldn’t reveal information without Obama’s permission.
I e-mailed AG Mark Bennett to ask what had changed, that Fukino’s reason to withhold information for over a year was suddenly no longer the case. It is almost 3 months later and I have not heard back from Mark Bennett.
Hawaii law says that all documents created or maintained by the State of Hawaii for the purpose of informing the public must be available to the public on request – redacting any vital records information that hasn’t already been made public. It also says that once the major finding from an attorney general’s opinion letter is revealed to the public, the opinion letter itself needs to be made available to the public upon request. According to these laws, all documents which Fukino used in order to make her July 27 statement that they have vital documents on file which prove Obama was born in Hawaii and is a “natural-born American citizen” must be made available upon request – including those vital documents, with non-revealed information redacted.
Those documents have been requested and refused. I believe there is a lawsuit in the works to see all these things which by Hawaii law are supposed to be available within 10 days to anyone who asks for them.
As you know from what I said before, the administrative rules which would reveal exactly what is meant by “on record” (the wording used in Fukino’s 2008 press release) versus “on file” (the wording used in the July 27, 2009 release AND on the COLB Obama published on Factcheck.org) are illegally hidden from the public. The DOH refuses to explain what is meant by the wording. They could just as well be speaking elvish and gleefully refusing to let anybody know what their words mean. Is this the kind of “openness” Hawaii expects out of her public servants?
The DOH was not answering UIPA requests according to the required 4 types of responses. When the OIP was brought in because of complaints, the DOH temporarily began answering requests as required by law. Those answers revealed that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended. They also revealed that the DOH had no documents on Barack Hussein Obama II as of Aug 9, 1961 – even though Obama’s posted COLB says it was FILED BY REGISTRAR on Aug 8, 1961. This strongly suggests that the online COLB Obama posted was fraudulent, and that the DOH knows it is fraudulent but has chosen to give the appearance of affirming its authenticity.
People have the idea that Obama was born in a Hawaii hospital – either Queens or Kapiolani, since both have been named by Obama or his relatives as his birhtplace, one claim on White House letterhead with raised seal and Obama signature. But the White House refuses to say whether that letter is authentic. If he was born in a Hawaii hospital, that hospital would have made out a long-form birth certificate with signatures, sent it to the DOH, and the birth certificate would be accepted by the state registrar. From then on, any requests for information would be answered by the information on that long-form birth certificate and placed on a COLB containing only the information that the person or an “interested party” knew and wanted verified. Potentially embarrassing information could simply be left off the COLB.
The fact that Obama’s posted COLB shows a filing date before the DOH says they had any information on him says something is definitely fishy. The fact that a secret AG opinion had to be acquired before Fukino could say that Obama was born in Hawaii and/or is a “natural-born American citizen” says something is fishy. And the fact that nobody at the DOH will explain what the words mean, nor follow their own laws to reveal what their administrative rules/procedures are so we can figure out what the words mean says that the DOH KNOWS SOMETHING IS FISHY. This is NOT a clear-cut case of a hospital birth duly recorded with the state registrar.
For the last week or so – shortly after Obama gave an executive order authorizing his “czars” to work toward improving opportunities for native Hawaiians – the DOH has not been answering UIPA requests. Expect OIP involvement in many, many cases of DOH obfuscation as a result of this. One person who called in was told that Fukino was not in Hawaii last week. I noticed that she made an announcement about H1N1 vaccines arriving at her office though. And surely somebody was at the office.
The pattern here is disturbing. Hawaii has good laws on the books. Unfortunately, it seems the people in Hawaii’s offices refuse to follow those laws.
I am requesting a formal legislative investigation of the doings at the Department of Health, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, and the Attorney General’s office involving these issues. In particular:
1) The failure to create administrative rules to replace “Rules of Practice and Procedure”, which was repealed in January of 2005.
2) The failure to follow the law requiring the administrative rules in current use to be available to the public.
3) The mid-June amending of the rules and requirements at DOH and DHHL without following the necessary steps for creating or amending them.
4) The legality of the July 27, 2009 statement about Obama’s records without his consent.
5) Whether or not the DOH reported to law enforcement or FBI what they knew to be the posting of a fraudulent COLB by Barack Hussein Obama II.
6) What communications the DOH and AG Mark Bennett have had with the White House or any member of the US Congress, influencing their decisions.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing your response. Please e-mail me with any questions you have regarding what I’ve said.