Amendment Confirmed

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.

From that Opinion Letter 07-01, it says on pp. 6-7 (emphasis mine):

For those whose identities are not public, a response that neither confirms nor denies the existence of responsive records maintains the confidentiality of the individual’s identity required by the registration statute. 13 See Haw. Rev. Stat.§ 92F-13(3). Accordingly, OIP believes that HPD should deny such a request by stating that records that would be responsive to the request, if any, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to sections 92F-13(3) and (4).”

The words, “if any” should be inserted into the standard denial in that case because without them, a standard denial confirms the existence of responsive records.

When I mentioned to the OIP that ” Second, the DOH is adding the phrase “if any” to their request denials, which means that they are denying requests for HYPOTHETICAL records and not obeying the rules which require them to say whether the record they have been asked to disclose exists.”, they responded by explaining that the “if any” is a Glomar response, which is used to keep from using the standard denial which would reveal the existence of the requested record:

This was their response:

“2.  Again, since I haven’t seen the request that was made or the agency’s response I can’t determine whether the response was proper.  However, it sounds like you may be referring to what’s commonly known as a Glomar response.  OIP has recognized that such a response may be proper under the UIPA in some circumstances.  See OIP Op. Ltr. No. 07-01 at 6-7.

And when I further asked them about a specific DOH response (“Your request is denied in its entirety as records that would be responsive to the request, if any, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to sections 92F-13(3) and (4). ” the OIP explained the inclusion of “if any” to the standard denial this way:

“I believe the agency response is made in the form it is because what it appears you were trying to do was verify information that would be contained on an individual’s birth certificate.  The Department of Health’s position is that it is prohibited by statute from releasing any information that is contained in a birth certificate.  Thus, the Department is trying to respond to a request that refers to specific information supposedly on a Department record, without actually verifying whether a record containing such information exists, because doing so would effectively disclose protected information.  OIP has generally advised DOH that OIP has recognized that, what is called under federal FOIA law, a “glomar” response, which may be appropriate when merely acknowleding the existence, or nonexistence, of a particular record would reveal information protected by statute.”

So the OIP has twice told me and pointed to OIP Opinion Letter 07-01 that “if any” is added to the standard denial because that keeps the denial from confirming the existence of what was requested. Without the “if any” a denial of access confirms the requested records exist.

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.

Advertisements

12 Comments

  1. SapphireSunday
    Posted March 8, 2010 at 4:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Well argued. Perfectly logical. You certainly set off a firestorm at Free Republic with your article about the bogus nature of the number on the COLB. Is that why somebody wrote that Chanise Foxx comment? To distract? Free Republic is very much infested with eligibility trolls.

    The LEGAL definition of the word VERIFY is: “to confirm or substantiate by oath, affidavit, or deposition.”

    From http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/verify.html

    Therefore, even if the “original vital records” consist of nothing more than an affidavit by “any person with knowledge of” his birth and the resulting “pending” birth certificate, the Fukino of the DoH, after consulting the AG about the wording of the statement, could have accurately stated that the “original vital records” VERIFY that Obama was born in Hawaii, even if that’s not true.

    According to the legal definition of “verify,” an affidavit, even if never proven accurate by the filing of supplementary proof, would still “confirm or substantiate by . . . affidavit . . .” In other words, verify what it states.

    So why did the DoH change their phrasing? The “original birth certificate” didn’t VERIFY that he was born in Hawaii, perhaps because it was and may still be in a pending state; but the affidavit did, according to legal terminology and clever parsing.

    Fukino stated that she would have no more to add, perhaps because she feared the next question: What exactly ARE those vital records (plural)?

    • Posted March 8, 2010 at 10:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I wasn’t aware of that definition of “verify”. Given that definition, the authenticity of the Kenyan birth certificate has also been “verified” because Lucas Smith signed an affidavit swearing to the facts of how he got it. Interesting input. Thank you.

      Regarding the Chanise Foxx thing, the post was actually done by someone who knows Obama is ineligible. He stated in the post that he was giving an example of fiction off the top of his head, just to show how easily it could be done – responding to a guy who said he had forged the Kenyan birth certificate. So it wasn’t an attempt to deceive. Apparently it was a post which was misunderstood.

      But yes, there are a lot of eligibility trolls on Free Republic, and the Chanise Foxx post was actually in response to one of those trolls.

      • SapphireSunday
        Posted March 9, 2010 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

        The reason I asked about the Chanise Foxx comment was because Citizen Wells set off a storm when he cited that comment and he also claimed that the Web was being scrubbed. Nobody could find the comment in the cache, when Free Republic went down for a while.

        So I wondered whether the part about “fiction” was there originally or if it had been added for clarification, by the site administrators.

        I don’t ordinarily follow Free Republic, so I don’t know who’s a troll and who’s not. I do know that the trolls employ misdirection, obfuscation, and Alinsky tactics, especially when it’s necessary to drown out a person who is making VALID points.

        One can tell when a point IS valid and, therefore, feared by the trolls, because they change the subject rather than to address the issue head on. They will NOT engage on any point that’s logical, obvious, and pertinent.

        I wish I’d found your blog long before now. You have the issue down pat and also have informative facts that I haven’t read elsewhere. Thanks for putting it all together for us.

      • Posted March 9, 2010 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on. That’s why the trolls blow smoke in the air so much. The “fiction” part was there originally.

        There are so many angles on Obama’s past it’s impossible for any one person to be knowledgeable in them all, but this is the one area that I’ve checked out myself so I can at least say what I’ve got. I only wish I had a bigger megaphone, to get the story out. I guess I’ll be the hands putting the pieces together if others will be the mouth telling what we know. We need us all. Every “yop” counts (from “Horton Hears a Who”) lol. =)

  2. SapphireSunday
    Posted March 9, 2010 at 8:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Thanks. I couldn’t get a coherent answer from anyone else about whether or not the comment was clearly marked as FICTION from the get go.

    It’s frustrating to see people engage in mass emotional overreaction to a fictional analogy. It wastes everyone’s time and energy, tracking down false stories and researching fictional people.

    This is exactly what the trolls love to see because it makes all of us who simply expect Obama to PROVE his eligibility look like a bunch of kooks. We need to keep our eyes firmly on the ball and dispense with the distractions. Thanks for your blog and rational analyses.

    • Posted March 9, 2010 at 9:08 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Exactly. For a while I was at Ace of Spades. I’ve tried posting my blog there but even tinyurl was considered too long a string there. Or maybe they just don’t want my input there after some conversations I had with a couple of the moderators. They had started out interested in the issue and then when the flame wars between Techdude, Polarik, and AJStrata came up they became disillusioned with it all. I don’t know if their minds will ever be open to the facts again. Such a loss. A lot of this stuff is just plain confusing so there are bound to be missteps and backtrackings. But the more that happens (and the more the Obots make sure it happens), the less willing the general public is to get entangled in trying to figure out what’s true.

      We have to cut to the chase as much as possible.

  3. R Kinion
    Posted July 23, 2010 at 4:38 am | Permalink | Reply

    keep trying! Keep trying kids! You brave – valiant – – – guys… It’s important, it’s good, that – it keeps you busy – keeps you off the streets so to speak – keeps the foam and steam which is sloshing around in your chemical-slush mucks of excuses for brains from blowing up and doing damage to yourselves, your loved ones, or the public at large, which is surely deserving of protection from your obsessions. So keep up the good work. America is changing around you and every moment that you focus upon this conspiracy then these changes, which are so necessary, yet so frightening to those of you forced to face the future with the limited mental capacities you exhibit, can take place with you safely on the sidelines, pursuing this… very very serious work. Keep at it boys (and girls). I’m sure you’re just about to make a breakthrough. Don’t you feel it? I know you do. I know it. So don’t give up! Don’t be ashamed that people label you racists and ignorant “birthers”. They do so only because THEY KNOW how close you are to finding…. THE TRUTH!!!!!!!

    • Posted July 23, 2010 at 4:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I approved this so people can see the difference between argument based on fact and sheer ridicule.

      People who have no facts ridicule those who do.

  4. usmcobra
    Posted December 19, 2010 at 2:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Simple question

    If the data on Obama’s original birth certificate matches what is on his 2007 COLB, what would need to be amended?

    Name?
    Place of Birth?
    Father?

    • Posted December 19, 2010 at 5:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Something that’s on the long-form but not on the COLB.

      The COLB contains pretty much all the items required by the CDC in 1961, with the exception of information about resident address and 2 other items – marital status of the mother, and the child’s birth weight. Both of those last 2 items are to be on the “confidential medical” portion of the long-form, so they are not included when somebody asks for a certified copy of their long-form, unless they specifically ask for even the confidential medical portion. So there was no reason in 2006 for Obama to worry about either of those items becoming public because those items don’t even show up on a long-form.

      The reason to amend those items would be because they had never been included to complete the BC. Additions or deletions after the first 3 months(?) are considered amendments/alterations, except that a first name can be added within 6 months without being considered an amendment. If it is a change of marital status what happens is called legitimation, and the original BC that shows an illegitimate birth (such as different surnames for the father and mother) is sealed and a new BC is created which shows the parents as being married at the time.

      If BHO and Stanley Ann were married at the time of the birth, BHO would be listed as the father even if somebody else was the biological father. If they weren’t married at the time but ever married, legitimation would have removed the illegitimacy information on the BC.

      So anyway, the marital status and the birth weight don’t show up on either the COLB or long-form, so the only reason Obama would have worried about either one is if either item was MISSING, because until those items are complete, there is no completed BC and the HDOH can’t print out ANY kind of birth certificate or verification.

      Based on the responses the HDOH has given – ruling out other items from being what was amended – I believe Obama amended his BC in 2006 to add his birth weight, which was necessary to complete the BC and have it accepted/filed/given a number – because until that amendment in 2006 the HDOH could not print out anything for him.

      If that is the case, it means that until 2006 he was using a BC from someplace besides Hawaii anytime he had to show a BC, like for kindergarten or college admission, driver’s license, etc.

      He probably wasn’t too worried about adding the birth weight since it doesn’t show up on either the COLB or the long-form. But without asking the HDOH directly – and giving away his problem to the HDOH at the time, in 2006 – he probably didn’t know that the addition would count as an amendment and would thus have to be noted on anything the HDOH prints out for him.

      I think he decided in 2006 to run for president because he thought he had the bases covered. Did all the stuff pushing McCain’s eligibility issue and making himself look so nice saying McCain was eligible, thinking he himself would triumphantly produce his own COLB if similarly requested. When he got his COLB, though, and it noted that it had been amended in 2006 to add a birth weight, there was a lot of cussing and gnashing teeth. That’s when they had to start manufacturing the forgeries and “enlisting the help” of somebody at the HDOH. Okubo said she was in contact with Obama regarding whether his records could be disclosed. I’d bet Obama and his lawyers made sure Okubo and Fukino knew they would be sued to kingdom come if the HDOH “violated the disclosure laws”. I have no way of checking, but I suspect that is when Fukino removed the Administrative Rules from the website, making sure nobody would find out that a non-certified COLB is discloseable to anybody who asks for it.

      So anyway, in answer to your “simple question” (lol. Never underestimate the possibility of things getting complicated), the amendment was probably to add a birth weight – an item that was normally added for non-attended births by the child being examined by a Hawaii doctor, who then submitted the information to complete the BC. The law at the time said there was a deadline for how soon the information had to be added before it would be considered an amendment and “late” BC. Lori Starfelt says that the HDOH told her the deadline was 30 days. A doctor could examine the baby and submit the missing information within the first 30 days. So the birth weight being added 45 years later would be a BIG red flag, begging the question of why the child hadn’t been examined by a Hawaii doctor within the first 30 days after birth. It also begs the question of what BC he used before 2006, since HI couldn’t print anything for him before then.

  5. jayHG
    Posted March 22, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

    You cannot deduct a confirmation. The only way Hawaii confirms an amendment of a birth certificate is that they confirm it. They do not tell you something and then leave it up to you to figure it out, so NO, President Obama’s birth certificate is not amended and Hawaii has not confirmed to you, your “glamour” response deduction notstanding, that it has……

    • Posted March 22, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The only time the HDOH is authorized to “confirm” anything is through a letter of verification. They’ve issued no letters of verification regarding Obama’s birth records so they have “confirmed” nothing about Obama’s records, according to your definitions.

      The job of the HDOH is to collect, store, and disclose records. If they refuse to disclose records they have to give the legal reason for refusing. If the reason is that the records don’t exist they have to say that, unless the very existence of the records is not discloseable. Both OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama and the HDOH have said their reason for not disclosing Obama’s amended BC (and receipts and invoices for the purpose of amending his BC) is because the requestor is not allowed to have access to those records – NOT BECAUSE THEY DON’T EXIST, which according to the OIP is the first step in responding to a request for records which don’t exist.

      That response INDIRECTLY confirms that those records exist. There is no way for the HDOH to DIRECTLY confirm an amendment. All they can do is disclose records which themselves either confirm or disprove an amendment.

      But the only actual records known to be from the HDOH office which address a possible amendment are the UIPA responses the HDOH has made – which are legal responses. Neither Obama nor anybody else has presented any LEGAL document from the HDOH which addresses whether Obama’s BC is amended – or, for that matter, even legally valid.

      The marks of validation for both the long-form BC and the COLB shown on the internet actually reveal them to be forgeries, not genuine certified copies from the HDOH. Fukino’s July 2009 press release said nothing directly about whether Obama’s BC is either legally valid or amended, and her use of the plural (vital recordS) implies that it WAS amended. The 1960-64 birth index has been proven to contain names from legally invalid records. A letter from Fuddy states only that they made certified copies for Obama – not whether the BC was amended or legally valid, or whether what they sent Obama is what Obama posted online.

      So we’ve got 2 instances where HDOH records were faked, one where a press release actually supports an amendment, one letter from Fuddy which leaves open whether the BC is amended or legally valid, and one official record which has been manipulated to defraud the public into thinking the records listed are all legally valid when it is proven that at least some of them are not.

      No confirmation of a legally valid and/or non-amended BC for Obama in Hawaii.

      IOW, from official/legal records we have more evidence that the BC is amended than we have that it is either legally valid or non-amended. And honest people should understand the significance of the fact that out of the 5 attempts to make it appear that the HDOH has confirmed a legally-valid, non-amended BC for Obama, three have been manipulated (including one documentably by the HDOH itself), one leaves the issue open, and one actually supports an amendment.

One Trackback

  1. […] itself? It’s not there. So much for following YOUR hyperlinks. Were you referring to the OIP Opinion you mention on another page? Or was it this OIP Opinion you linked to on another page? I certainly […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: