Complete E-mail Response to Terri K from DOH

Complete E-mail Response to Terri K from DOH

(Including all requests included in the final response)

This is the e-mail that was sent by the Hawaii Department of Health to Terri K. It includes the history of communications which shows what the DOH knew they were responding to. As the Office of Information Practices determined on appeal of this response, this is a denial of access to all the records requested, without a Glomar response (“if any” statement) – which confirms the existence of the requested records to which access is being denied.

 

RE: Please add to my UIPA request

From: Okubo, Janice S. (janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov)

Sent: Thu 9/03/09 3:48 PM

To: Terri K (redacted)

 

Aloha Terri K,

 

I am responding to your latest e-mails on behalf of Dr. Fukino and the Department of Health.

Section 92F-13, Hawaii Revised Statutes, says that disclosure is not required for government records that are protected from disclosure by state law. Section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is just such a law. It prohibits disclosure of vital statistics records to anyone who does not have a direct and tangible interest in the record. Those persons with a direct and tangible interest are listed specifically in the statute. Under section 338-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, vital statistics records include registration, preparation, and preservation of data pertaining to births and other vital events, as well as related information.

 

Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it. You have not shown that you have such an interest in President Obama’s birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or any related information.

 

We now consider this matter closed. We do not plan to respond to further UIPA requests from you for President Obama’s birth certificate or any related information.

 

Janice Okubo

Communications Office

Hawaii State Department of Health

1250 Punchbowl Street

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Phone: (808) 586-4442

Fax: (808) 586-4444

email: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov

 

Windows Live Hotmail Print Message http://co102w.col102.mail.live.com/mail/PrintShell.aspx?type=me…

_____________________________________________________________________________________

From: Terri K [mailto:redacted]

Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:13 AM

To: Fukino, Chiyome L.; Okubo, Janice S.

 

Subject: RE: Please add to my UIPA request

In case it isn’t obvious, this portion of my argument and OIP Op. Ltr. No. 90-37 refers to record requests made under PART III of UIPA:

 

“…and in that letter is a paragraph that references FOIA and states “that the U.S. Department of Justice has GENERALLY concluded that individuals have a protectable privacy interest…” rather than saying “ALWAYS concluded” I ask that you will consider my UIPA request on it’s merits.”

Thx

 

 

From: terri (redacted)

To: chiyome.fukino@doh.hawaii.gov; janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov

Subject: RE: Please add to my UIPA request

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:44:11 -0400

 

Unless, I hear otherwise–my understanding is that my argument was, INDEED, added to my UIPA request.

 

Thx

 

 

From: terri(redacted)

To: chiyome.fukino@doh.hawaii.gov; janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov

Subject: Please add to my UIPA request

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:07:57 -0400

 

Dear Dr. Fukino-

I would like to add the following argument to my UIPA request sent yesterday (I have copied it below, too):

 

Since President Obama’s UIPA request(s) is not covered by HRS §338 and OIP Op. Ltr. No. 90-37 sets out only a general rule that UIPA requests made under Part II for general records will generally be disclosed subject to redaction under an applicable exception under section 92F-13, Hawaii Revised Statutes; and in that letter is a paragraph that references FOIA and states “that the U.S. Department of Justice has GENERALLY concluded that individuals have a protectable privacy interest…” rather than saying “ALWAYS concluded” I ask that you will consider my UIPA request on it’s merits.

 

In particular, I would like to argue that I am referencing indirectly Dr. Fukino’s public statement (7/27/09) that she saw ‘original vital records’ (plural) by requesting the President Obama’s UIPA request(s). Using deductive reasoning, I see that the only way MORE than one record would verify birthplace and natural-born citizenship is if there were evidence filed in an amendment that would correct factual errors made when his original birth certificate was filed.

 

I am not having luck with verifying the deductive reasoning I used with the Hawaii DoH because they won’t answer simple procedural/policy questions even when I don’t reference any specific individual. However, the typical person (I use that term loosely) would have only a single long-form birth certificate to verify both birthplace and natural-born citizenship. Let me know if I have not explained that clearly.

 

Furthermore, I am curious about ‘clerical errors’ and feel the public has a right to know when a clerical error is made by the state. I don’t seek any of the significant privacy information and do not seek the incorrect or correct or corrected information–just a record that the state made an error. Even if it was 48+ years ago.

 

Please confirm that you received this email and added it to my UIPA request.

 

Thx

 

 

 

Dear Dr. Fukino,

I have been told that you are the correct person to send this UIPA records request to. PLEASE READ ALL OF IT CAREFULLY.

 

Under the Uniform Information Practices Act of the State of Hawaii, “…the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public’s interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies —shall be conducted as openly as possible.”

 

1.) I request an electronic copy of any and all UIPA requests made by President Barack Obama or anyone claiming to represent him for access to his personal vital records so that he could make’corrections’ to his vital record information.

 

2.) I request an electronic copy of the ruling(s) or opinion(s) of those record requests.

 

3.) Please provide me electronic copies of all communication concerning formal or informal UIPA request(s) made by President Barack Obama or anyone claiming to represent him for access to his personal vital records.

 

4.) Please send me an electronic copy of any and all invoices and receipts of fees paid on behalf of or by President Obama for access to his vital records, amendments or anything pertaining to his vital records.

 

I am not waiving any fees. Please disclose the records incrementally if some are not immediately accessible. If portions are confidential–don’t disclose those portions. I only want public records–none of them are vital records.

 

This request is a Hawaii UIPA (Uniform Information Practices Act) request under section 92F-12.

 

thx

 

Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you.

 

Try Bing™ now.

Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. Try it now.

Advertisements

3 Comments

  1. James
    Posted February 15, 2010 at 5:05 am | Permalink | Reply

    While it might not be possible for an ordinary individual to get certified copies of Obama’s Vital Records, HRS 338 does allow verification of such records under the following provision:

    Haw. Rev. Stat. § 338-18 : Hawaii Statutes – Section 338-18: Disclosure of records.

    (g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:

    5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes.

  2. ksdb
    Posted February 15, 2010 at 5:45 am | Permalink | Reply

    I’m glad Terri has pushed as much as she had, but I don’t think sending requests in the context of an ‘argument’ was ever going to elicit much cooperation. Yet, even before Terri used that techniuqe, it’s clear the DOH was planning to ignore its own laws:

    “Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it.”

    Obviously this statement by the DOH is a gross distortion of the laws and administrative rules. They should know and should have informed anyone making requests from the beginning what they could and couldn’t provide. The people in this department need to be replaced with competent professionals.

  3. Posted December 27, 2012 at 5:28 am | Permalink | Reply

    Okubo said:

    “Under section 338-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, vital statistics records include registration, preparation, and preservation of data pertaining to births and other vital events, as well as related information.

    Therefore, neither a birth certificate “nor any information related to a birth certificate” may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it. You have not shown that you have such an interest in President Obama’s birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or “any related information.”

    Nowhere is there any mention by Hawaii of any amendments. There is mention of supporting information as being considered a vital record because IT RESIDES IN THE BIRTH RECORD FILE.

    EVERYTHING THEY PUT IN THE BIRTH RECORD FILE IS CONSIDERED A VITAL RECORD.

    An amendment is NOT the only way for there to be two vital records mentioned if SUPPORTIVE INFORMATION IS CONSIDERED A VITAL RECORD. That supportive information can be proof of residency, or even a statement from anyone with firsthand knowledge of the birth event.

    Hawaii does not provide corroborative information attached to a vital record. Hawaii does not confirm the existence of it, either, except as per HRS 338-17. If you do not fill out a birth certificate request exactly as shown, you will get empty spaces for each field you failed to fill out of fill out correctly. So, even though you ask for a copy of the UIPA to request an amendment, Okubo reciting HRS 338 does not prove there is an amendment because it was presented in an omnibus way, to cover every piece of information connected to a vital record for the purposes of supporting that record. Okubo cannot verify the existence of an amendment, and, in fact, does not.

    A birth certificate for the mother could have been the 2nd vital record rather than an amendment to a birth certificate because the mother had to be an 18 year old US citizen to automatically confer her citizenship to her child if the child were not born in Hawaii. By Hawaii statutes, Obama’s original birth certificate would still have Hawaii as the place of birth. There is a 30-day window to get the child born out-of-state registered in order to receive a regular original birth certificate. The added information becomes part of the vital record and Hawaii considers any supplemental information attached to a vital record to be an expansion of that vital record and subject to every rule that a single vital record would have.

    NOTE: Fukino still never mentions a Certificate of Live Birth as being one of the vital records. A Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could have been a vital record in his file. Requesting a Delayed Certificate of Live Birth would have been the 2nd vital record. It is not an amendment anymore than a late or delayed certificate would be called, “an amendment.”

    Obama could have requested a new original birth certificate if there was no longer a parent-child relationship between himself and Obama Sr. This is NOT an amendment to the original birth certificate. The 1st original birth certificate never has anything written on it. It would be placed in a sealed envelope, and a new original birth certificate marked with LATE or DELAYED would be exchanged.

    The COLB is, of course, a forgery, because it was never made, and if it were real, it would not be valid because it is supposed to say LATE or DELAYED on it in a statement below the Father’s Name.

    Back on 10/31/2008, Fukino did not day she saw any actual birth certificate. She only confirmed that his original birth certificate (the origin of which and its contents were unknown) was “on record;” i.e., it was listed in a computer record or paper record indicating its existence at the time the record was created.

    Having a BC “on record” DOES NOT MEAN that the actual BC physically exists in the HDOH.

    Obama did not make any changes to his birth record until after th short form was released. If he did make a change in 2006 it was not the only time or the only one.

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: