Joesting Won’t Correct Terri K

OIP Attorney Linden Joesting Declines to Correct Terri K’s Understanding

NOTE: This post has had to be edited because all of a sudden Word won’t publish my documents to my blog; it “has encountered a problem” and shuts down when I try.

After “Red Flags in Hawaii” was posted, skeptics questioned whether a denial of access is truly confirmation of a record’s existence, as the many documents and statements cited in the supporting link all agreed. Terri K/Miss Tickly decided to ask Linden Joesting directly, whether Terri was misunderstanding what Joesting had meant – specifically by concluding that the records requested must exist since access to them was denied. The complete record of communication is below. (Note that MT’s communications are listed according to Hawaii time, so the real time for MT and for comparison purposes would be 5 hours later than the time that appears. Joesting’s communications show in Eastern time so to Joesting the time would have been 5 hours earlier than the time that shows. Highlighting emphasis is mine).

Summarizing, the question was asked on Monday. Monday through Tuesday morning, Joesting asked for clarification so she could address the question, signaling that she had the time and intent to do so. Tuesday afternoon was when the hearing on the “Vexatious Requestors Bill” was held – at which Joesting’s boss (OIP Director Cathy Takase) testified that the bill was necessary because staff was being overworked because of all the “mentally ill” people who can’t even recognize when their request has been answered. At that hearing it was decided to move the bill forward. Three days after that meeting, on Friday, Joesting told Miss Tickly she was sorry but she (all of a sudden) didn’t have time to respond.

Miss Tickly had asked Joesting to correct her if her understanding was wrong. It would have taken no more time for Joesting to say, “You misunderstood what I meant” than to say, “I’m too busy to respond.” Joesting’s response wasn’t because she was too busy; it was because she was told not to answer the question. Her answer, when asked to correct any misunderstanding by Miss Tickly, was essentially “no comment”.

This tells me 3 things:


1. Miss Tickly did not misunderstand what Joesting was saying. In a 30-second e-mail Joesting could have ended what the OIP considers to be “harassment” from the public, if she could only have said it was all a misunderstanding. They’d have jumped on that chance. But they didn’t have that chance because Miss Tickly’s understanding was correct. The most non-incriminating answer they could give was simply to refuse to answer. So that’s what they did. Just like Obama.

2. Linden Joesting is being gagged by Cathy Takase.

3. The “over-burdened” argument for the “Vexatious Requestors Bill” is just an excuse to not be forced to answer to the public.

The same thing happened in December when Janice Okubo sent out acknowledgments to requestors saying that she was too busy to answer their requests. Out of curiosity I requested all the UIPA responses she had sent out in the previous 10 work days. She took the time to answer my request promptly (even as these other requests for simple one-glance responses sat waiting, some of my own for another month) – and sent me the huge workload she was burdened under in those 2 weeks: 5 form-letter denials (which took a minute or less each to respond to) and 2 denials consisting of 2-4 paragraphs – none of which involved ANY research or inspection of records. Okubo later told the Advertiser that she averaged 50 requests each week. For the 2-week period she was checked on (during the time she was claiming to be too busy) that would be an “exaggeration” of 1400%.

Fukino’s testimony in support of the “Vexatious Requestor Bill” toned the claim down to 50 e-mail requests for Obama’s records each month (not even 2 per day) but that has recently been proven as an exaggeration of over 400% even when all the requests not related to Obama specifically are included as if they were requests for Obama’s info.

I wonder what would show up from a UIPA request to see the “so many requests for assistance on matters pending before agencies” the OIP was dealing with when Joesting gave her response. This is how these people make more work for themselves… I’m not going to make that request because in 2 similar situations we’ve already proven how untrue the excuse has been in the past, but you see my point. They (Takase and Fukino via their spokesmen) are willing to use any excuse that allows them to not have to answer questions or provide documentation – including outright lies to the Hawaii Senate. When backed against a wall their response is to soil their armor and run (Brave Sir Robin). Why not just answer the questions? Why not just follow the laws and rules?

Miss Tickly/Terri K’s request for clarification:
(Email redacted)
02/22/2010 09:25 AM
To oip@hawaii.gov
cc
Subject Attn: Linden Joesting

Dear Ms. Joesting,
Aloha and I hope all is well with you. I am very reluctant to bother you again, but last summer you advised me on a few UIPA requests for records that I made to the Department of Health. I am hoping now that you might clarify both the advice you gave me and your ruling on appeal.
Some have insisted that I am putting words in your mouth and in Dr. Fukino’s mouth by sharing my interpretation of your advice and rulings on one particular UIPA request. That is the last thing I wish to do so I feel the best thing for me is to ask for clarification. I have assumed that because you both denied me access to copies of receipts and invoices generated by the amendment to the President’s birth certificate as well as my request for President Obama’s own UIPA request made under Part III to access and amend his birth certificate, that was a ‘stautory’ acknowledgment that those records exist. You both were very particular on the statutes you cited to deny access. Is my understanding correct?
It is also my understanding that there is no statute that would protect a nonexistent receipt, invoice or records request. Your advice prior to the ruling by the DoH and your ruling on appeal is that Dr. Fukino should have told me if those records did not exist. She did not and you did not, instead I was denied access.
If I am unclear on what your advice meant and on my interpretation of the ruling and appeal, will you please correct me? I do not wish to misconstrue anything.
Below are two statements that you sent me last summer for quick reference.

Thank you so much and I am very sorry to waste your time on this again. If you simply cannot comment, I understand and thank you, anyway, for all your help.
-(Name redacted)

This statement:
“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.”

And also 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.”
First response:
________________________________________
From: “oip@hawaii.gov”
To: (redacted)
Sent: Mon, February 22, 2010 8:41:15 PM
Subject: Re: Attn: Linden Joesting

Ms. (redacted),

Thank you for your email. Does this request relate to an email of 18 August 2009 on the subject of a “second UIPA records request?” The email was from (email redacted) and was responded to the same day by this office.
Sincerely,
Linden Joesting
Staff Attorney

Office of Information Practices
State of Hawaii
No. 1 Capitol District Building
250 S. Hotel St., Suite 107
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Tel.: 808-586-1400
Fax: 808-586-1412
E-mail: oip@hawaii.gov
Web site: http://www.hawaii.gov/oip

Miss Tickly’s response:

E-mail redacted
02/22/2010 04:13 PM
To oip@hawaii.gov
cc
Subject Re: Attn: Linden Joesting

Ms. Joesting- Yes, that is the email exchange to which I am referring. I appreciate your helping me.

-(Name redacted)
Request to see particular request and response, if request is not pending
________________________________________
From: “oip@hawaii.gov”
To: (redacted)
Sent: Tue, February 23, 2010 1:07:05 PM
Subject: Re: Attn: Linden Joesting

Dear (redacted),

Do you have a request pending with the Department of Health for records on either topic – amendments to or requests for copies of President Obama’s birth certificate?

If not, and you made such a request earlier, could you share with me the requests and responses?

Thank you in advance!

Sincerely,
Linden Joesting
Staff Attorney

Office of Information Practices
State of Hawaii
No. 1 Capitol District Building
250 S. Hotel St., Suite 107
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Tel.: 808-586-1400
Fax: 808-586-1412
E-mail: oip@hawaii.gov
Web site: http://www.hawaii.gov/oip

Miss Tickly gives the particulars

(redacted)
02/23/2010 09:07 AM To oip@hawaii.gov
cc
Subject Re: Attn: Linden Joesting

Hi Ms. Joesting,

I have no pending requests, the last one I made was in October and was answered in November.

Below is the records request to which I am referring and attached is the ruling you gave it on appeal. Please let me know if you need more information.

Thanks again—(Name redacted)

“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.”

Final Response 3 Days Later : Too busy to answer you

—– Forwarded Message —-
From: “oip@hawaii.gov”
To: (redacted)
Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 12:44:15 PM
Subject: Re: Attn: Linden Joesting

Ms. (redacted),

Since we have so many requests for assistance on matters pending before agencies, I am reluctant to take the time away from those cases to answer your questions.

Please accept my regrets as I am trying to complete pending requests for assistance.

Sincerely,
Linden Joesting
Staff Attorney

Office of Information Practices
State of Hawaii
No. 1 Capitol District Building
250 S. Hotel St., Suite 107
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Tel.: 808-586-1400
Fax: 808-586-1412
E-mail: oip@hawaii.gov
Web site: http://www.hawaii.gov/oip

Advertisements

38 Comments

  1. HistorianDude
    Posted March 11, 2010 at 10:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

    It appears that Joesting also declined to confirm Terri K.

    • ksdb
      Posted March 12, 2010 at 3:53 am | Permalink | Reply

      Historiandude, if somebody doesn’t correct you on an assumption, that tends to confirm it or at least reinforce your belief that you’re right, more than it would lead you to believe you’re wrong.

      • HistorianDude
        Posted March 12, 2010 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

        That is one possibility, but it is not the only one.

        Another is that the person has decided that you are a “vexatious requestor” and should not be encouraged to continue a correspondence that has already proven to be futile.

        I’m sure that there are other possibilities as well.

        But the bottom line remains that Terri K’s assertion that the DOH has “confirmed” Obama’s birth record to be amended is delusional.

      • Posted March 12, 2010 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

        Right. It’s supported by at least the following:

        Two notes of counsel by Joesting
        Two OIP appeal rulings
        The OIP Booklet
        Two distinct OIP Opinion Letters (plus several more which cite those opinion letters affirmatively)
        The Wiki definition of “Glomar response” that Takase personally sent me, along with her explanations of why the “if any” statement was included on DOH responses to me

        It’s refuted by no documents that anyone has been able to produce.

        And when asked point-blank whether the understanding was correct, Joesting started to address the question until Takase told her she couldn’t answer it.

        But it’s “delusional”.

        Right. Your true colors are showing.

      • Jason1776
        Posted March 12, 2010 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

        Where can I find Takase’s “explanations of why the “if any” statement was included on DOH responses.” I searched your blog using her name and couldn’t find it.

      • Posted March 13, 2010 at 12:56 am | Permalink

        I haven’t posted Takase’s explanation. The first response she gave, before having seen the requests I had made because they were “lost”, was,

        “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.”

        The second response she gave was after she saw my question which involved this statement by the DOH: “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). ”

        Her response to my query was this:

        “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. See OIP Opinion Letter Number 07-01, which is available on our website. ”

        The “if any” is used when either acknowledging the existence of a record or denying the existence of a record would disclose protected information. They had to add the “if any” because if they hadn’t, the denial of access would have been an acknowledgment of the denied record’s existence.

        Just to explain a little bit here, the DOH eventually acknowledged that a doctor’s, nurse’s, or midwife’s signature submitted as proof for Obama’s AMENDED birth certificate did not exist. To the very end they have held that they could not reveal whether the same thing did or didn’t exist for his ORIGINAL birth certificate. After racking my brain and submitting other test requests I realized that there is a difference between what they can reveal from an actual birth certificate (nothing) and what they can reveal from processing documents (anything that doesn’t actually end up appearing on the certificate).

        I was confused about that because Okubo’s standard response for all requests is that they can’t reveal ANYTHING from “public health statistics records”, which by statutory definition includes processing records. The seeming inconsistency in their responses between the original and amended BC’s only makes sense if they, too, acknowledge that documents other than the actual certificates only qualify for the dislosure limitations of the B section of 338-18. Okubo’s responses have always lumped those documents in as if they qualified for section A of 338-18 (no disclosure at all), which actually only applies to the actual certificates.

        That’s all probably very confusing to somebody coming into this fresh and it was very confusing for me also. Okubo’s misdirection of mashing all records together as if there was no distinction between section A and section B of HRS 338-18 was probably responsible for about half of my UIPA requests. Now that I understand what the law actually means – which Okubo STILL botches every time she says anything – I have not asked for records whose very existence is protected from disclosure because it reveals content on the BC that is not authorized for disclosure by the rules or laws.

        I have not – for instance – asked for records relating to Obama’s birthplace, which is not authorized for disclosure by law or by rules. And that is the one thing Fukino supposedly disclosed to the entire public without batting an eyelash. Consistent, huh?

        The only authorized procedures for Fukino to reveal to the public information actually on a certificate is through index data or by a non-certified copy of an abbreviated certificate. Any other disclosures of what is actually on the certificate are forbidden by HRS 338-18(a). The disclosure Fukino made was forbidden. The disclosure she is REQUIRED to make to anybody who asks for it (the non-certified copy of an abbreviated birth certificate or COLB) and the index data that was grandfathered into public access when UIPA was passed (birth date and certificate number) she refuses to do.

        People need to understand that she did what was forbidden and refuses to do what is required. Hence, the problem.

      • Posted March 13, 2010 at 1:27 am | Permalink

        I should add that there is one other way also that the DOH can publicly disclose information directly from a birth certificate: As of 1976 the DOH was authorized to disclose index information to the newspapers (including, with the parents’ permission, parents’ address). The DOH was to compile a daily index list of births (index data which until recently also was REQUIRED to include the date of birth and the certificate number) and have the list available for public viewing at the DOH office and/or send a copy of the list to the newspapers. That began in 1976 with daily lists that were sent to the newspapers. The retention schedule for those lists has changed a couple times but the first time any of those lists is mentioned or transferred to the comptroller for disposal was in 1981. Those lists were not authorized and did not exist prior to 1976.

      • Jason1776
        Posted March 13, 2010 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

        The “if any” is used when either acknowledging the existence of a record or denying the existence of a record would disclose protected information. They had to add the “if any” because if they hadn’t, the denial of access would have been an acknowledgment of the denied record’s existence.

        I must be missing something. This explanation does not appear anywhere in Ms. Takase’s comments. These words appear to be yours, and not Ms. Takase’s at all.

        It looks to me that Ms. Takase seems to be going out of her way to make certain that you understand that the DOH is not admitting that an amendment to President Obama’s birth certificate exists. You also referenced the “The Wiki definition of ‘Glomar response’” which does not appear to say anything about using “if any.”

        Just to explain a little bit here, the DOH eventually acknowledged that a doctor’s, nurse’s, or midwife’s signature submitted as proof for Obama’s AMENDED birth certificate did not exist.

        Wouldn’t that be true if an amended birth certificate did not exist at all?

        That’s all probably very confusing to somebody coming into this fresh and it was very confusing for me also.

        Oh yes. I admit that I am very confused. I think part of my problem is that you do not make a very clear distinction between what has actually been said by the Hawaii Department of Health or Office of Information Practices and what is your later interpretation of what they said. There are places where your reasoning is withheld, and so it becomes impossible for a new reader to connect the dots… as in this case here.

        I had understood from what you wrote that there actually was a specific requirement for a “Glomar response” to include the words “if any.”That does not appear to be correct.

      • Posted March 14, 2010 at 1:36 am | Permalink

        The OIP Letter that Joesting referred me to, pp. 6-7, says in reference to a records request where acknowledging the existence of the record would disclose protected information:

        “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).”

        It also says later on the page in a footnote:

        “13 Cf. Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 887 n.2 (U.S. App.
        D.C. 1995) (A response to a Efederal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)] request, in which
        an agency states that it can “neither conffin nor deny” the existence of responsive records,
        is popularly referred to as a “Glomar response,” after a case concerning a FOIA request for
        records relating to an underwater sea craft called the “Glomar Explorer.”); see OIP Op.
        Ltr. No. 95-21 at 18 (recognizing use of “Glomar response” in privacy context).”

        Joesting wrote that opinion letter. She counseled the agency to use a Glomar response by saying that the records, IF ANY, are protected from disclosure. A standard denial of access would not be appropriate because it would confirm that the requested records exist, since you can’t deny access to records that don’t exist. So to keep from confirming a record’s existence the “IF ANY” statement has to be added to a denial.

        As you can see from the footnote above, a Glomar response can also state that an agency will neither deny nor confirm the existence of a record. But in an instance where a person asked for the specific record and not for confirmation or denial of the record’s existence, the response has to say whether they grant or deny access to the requested record. So the proper Glomar response to that would be to say that the records, IF ANY, are denied.

        Without the “IF ANY”, a denial is confirmation of the record’s existence.

      • Jason1776
        Posted March 14, 2010 at 4:12 am | Permalink

        I am trying very, very hard to wrap my head around your reasoning here. It is difficult because, again, you have a habit of blurring the line between what your sources say and what you say. You often insert assertions with no actually connection of them to your sources. It makes understanding your writing very difficult. I’m sure you’ve heard that same critique from others.

        The OIP Letter that Joesting referred me to, pp. 6-7, says in reference to a records request where acknowledging the existence of the record would disclose protected information:

        “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).”

        I am growing more and more confused here, because you seem to be contradicting yourself and your sources. It appears to be your contention that you did not receive a Glomar response. But the responses (especially those of Ms. Joesting who, after all, is the one who brought up the subject) seem to be asserting that this is in fact exactly what you received. Didn’t you specifically ask Ms. Joesting about the words “if any” because that is what the DOH was saying in responses that you were receiving? And wasn’t her answer that you were, in fact, receiving a Glomar response?

        Your February 9th post “Amendment Confirmed” further makes an interesting observation regarding the requests being made by Terri K. In that case, it was Terri K herself who qualified the requests as being for ““any & all material(s).” With those words, she actually Glomarized her own request… acknowledging that she was asking for hypothetical records as opposed to specific records. A blanket denial for access to “any and all records” would be identical were there a single record or dozens. It wouldn’t even require an explicit Glomar response, because the request itself already took care of that.

        In short, a Glomar response is any response where the speaker neither affirms nor denies the existence of records. And as I reread your correspondence (along with TerriK’s) this is exactly what it looks like you’ve both been getting from the Hawaii DoH.

        It also says later on the page in a footnote:

        “13 Cf. Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 887 n.2 (U.S. App.
        D.C. 1995) (A response to a Efederal Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)] request, in which
        an agency states that it can “neither conffin nor deny” the existence of responsive records,
        is popularly referred to as a “Glomar response,” after a case concerning a FOIA request for
        records relating to an underwater sea craft called the “Glomar Explorer.”); see OIP Op.
        Ltr. No. 95-21 at 18 (recognizing use of “Glomar response” in privacy context).”

        I note that there is no discussion of the words “if any” in that footnote.

        Joesting wrote that opinion letter. She counseled the agency to use a Glomar response by saying that the records, IF ANY, are protected from disclosure. A standard denial of access would not be appropriate because it would confirm that the requested records exist, since you can’t deny access to records that don’t exist. So to keep from confirming a record’s existence the “IF ANY” statement has to be added to a denial.

        Ignoring that no, Ms. Joestng did not write that opinion letter, there you go again… blurring the line between what the letter said and what you are interpreting it to mean. Your assertion that “a standard denial would be inappropriate because it would confirm that the requested records exist” is your statement, and cannot be found anywhere in the opinion letter. That is your comment, not the OIP’s.

        Now, this opinion letter reflects advice given to the Hawaii Police Department in February of 2007. Do you have any evidence that similar advice was ever given to anybody from the Department of Health?

        As you can see from the footnote above, a Glomar response can also state that an agency will neither deny nor confirm the existence of a record. But in an instance where a person asked for the specific record and not for confirmation or denial of the record’s existence, the response has to say whether they grant or deny access to the requested record.

        The footnote does not say that.

        So the proper Glomar response to that would be to say that the records, IF ANY, are denied.

        The footnote does not say that.

        Without the “IF ANY”, a denial is confirmation of the record’s existence.

        I still do not understand this position. A denial is (as far as I can tell) a confirmation that you are not authorized to access vital records of other people… no matter what they are. It doesn’t even require somebody to go check to see if any documents are even there,

      • Posted March 14, 2010 at 5:16 am | Permalink

        The OIP makes rules regarding how UIPA is to be followed. It is obvious to me, Jason, that you have not read the source documents that I have cited. If you had read the UIPA Booklet, for instance, you would not be making the statements you are making. OIP letters contain both specific rulings and general interpretations. When Takase said in Opinion Letter 07-01 that the HDP should Glomarize their response by adding “if any” to their denial in order to not confirm the record’s existence she made clear that “if any” was needed in order to accomplish that.

        Simply stated, none of the denials that Terri K/Miss Tickly received regarding records for Obama’s amendment included the “if any” statement, nor did they include any statement saying that the existence of the records were neither being denied nor confirmed. Linden Joesting twice told MT that if the records did not exist the proper response for the DOH to give would be a statement saying they did not exist. They didn’t say that. MT appealed the DOH’s response so Linden Joesting had the job of making sure that the answer the DOH had given was proper. She – who had said that the proper response if there was no record was a statement that there was no record – agreed that the DOH’s non-Glomarized denial was the correct response. Ms Joesting had already told MT TWICE that the correct response would be “the records don’t exist” if that was the case.

        This Glomarization concept is a big deal in FOIA. It’s the equivalent of pleading the 5th. This is not rocket science. One of the anti-birthers at Free Republic, Parsifal, understood this concept easily because this is standard operating procedure for getting out of admitting that a record exists. If the Glomar response is not used it is an admission of a record’s existence. This is common knowledge. It’s in all the documents I cited.

        To check if her understanding was correct, MT contacted Joesting directly. Joesting acted as if she was addressing the question and then abruptly said she didn’t have time to answer it. In effect, she (or actually her boss, Takase) pleaded the 5th rather than giving a simple yes or no answer.

        Your last statement “It doesn’t even require somebody to go check to see if any documents are even there”, shows that you have not looked at the UIPA Manual. The OIP has mandated that the first step for any agency is ALWAYS to see if the record is there.

        Jason, the information is there. You’ve made your argument. Obviously you don’t think the documentation I’ve got is enough. Fine. Others have seen your case. They’ve seen the documentation I’ve got. They can make up their own minds. It is clear to me that all you will accept is a direct statement that a denial is a confirmation of a record’s existence. MT asked Joesting to make that direct statement. Joesting said she was too busy to answer the question one way or another. There is no indirect evidence that will ever get you to believe this and Hawaii refuses to give a direct answer. There’s nothing I can do to help you and I bid you farewell as we agree to disagree.

      • MissTickly
        Posted March 14, 2010 at 5:29 am | Permalink

        “It doesn’t even require somebody to go check to see if any documents are even there”

        Yes, it does. Here’s one example of their rules: http://hawaii.gov/oip/guidancefaqs.html#whatarethepossibleresponses

        And below are TWO direct statements of advice from Linden Joesting given to me BEFORE I filed my request with the DOH:

        This statement:

        “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.”

        And also 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.”

        Why is this sooo, taxing for you to wrap your head around? Do you honestly expect me to walk away from this communication thinking, “well, I guess there are no records responsive to my request…”

        Sorry, I cannot. I know what I was told, and I believe that they are answering to a minimum standard required per the rules under which they operate. They MUST tell me if the records exist. Here is a copy of the OIP administrative rules as well: http://hawaii.gov/oip/OIP%20Admin%20Rules.PDF

        Notice they have to cite the law that protects a record from disclosure if access is denied? What law would you cite to protect a record that doesn’t even exist?

        You must believe they are deviating from the rules in order to paint me as ‘delusional.’ IF that were the case, you should be disgusted and skeptical of them, not me. What a waste of resources and time. Imagine they are lying to the public through open government records requests, in order to lead people astray, all for Obama’s political gain and their own amusement.

        Sorry, I personally don’t see it going down that way. I am not THAT crazy.

        I have received “glomarized” responses in the past and “no records responsive to the request” as well…..Sooooo is it just the incriminating answers that are not to be believed???

        Serious, give me a gd break. I see it how I see it for GOOD reason. I am finished explaining to the willfully ignorant.

      • MissTickly
        Posted March 14, 2010 at 3:50 am | Permalink

        You really think that your quick glance at things uncovered something we missed or uncovered some delusion on our part??? PLEASE.

        Methinks you give yourself too much credit and not enough to other people who have spent MUCH more time researching.

        Sorry to call you out–but it’s extremely rude and demeaning.

    • MissTickly
      Posted March 13, 2010 at 2:43 am | Permalink | Reply

      “Terri K’s assertion that the DOH has “confirmed” Obama’s birth record to be amended is delusional.”

      Don’t put words in my mouth, a**hole.

      If you READ what was posted, you would ‘get’ that I wrote to Joesting and asked if I was misunderstanding the ruling. I was asking for confirmation.

      She declined to answer.

      Take it for what it is, but do not put words in my mouth then call me delusional, you slimey POS.

      • Jason1776
        Posted March 14, 2010 at 2:41 am | Permalink

        Have you never claimed that the DOH has confirmed that President Obama’s birth record is amended? I thought you had.

      • MissTickly
        Posted March 14, 2010 at 3:37 am | Permalink

        No, I have never made such a claim.

        I have asserted that the DOH has indirectly confirmed the BC was amended, in several communications. But never have I claimed they directly confirmed anything. I asked Joesting, she declined to comment, what more can I do? I have an attorney that says it’s a “statutory admission” (Leo Donofrio)–is that good enough? What more can I provide as support for my understanding????

        IMO the DOH and OIP made a statutory acknowledgment that an amendment exists in that they denied me access to receipts and invoices generated when an amendment was made as well as denying me access to BHO’s own UIPA request to access an amend his birth certificate. They cited a particular statute that covers specific vital records.

        Neither agency would cite any privacy laws protecting disclosure if there were no records to keep from disclosing. Instead they would have told me there are “no records responsive to my request,” just like they did for my request for a ‘supplemental birth certificate.’

        In fact, I could not appeal with the OIP if there were no records to which I was being denied access. HOWEVER, I did in fact appeal the DOH ruling and Joesting upheld the ruling that I was denied access.

        Geez, if people can’t understand why I believe there was an amendment, I don’t even give a flying fig anymore.

    • MissTickly
      Posted March 13, 2010 at 7:18 am | Permalink | Reply

      BTW, Historian D*ck, I have only been told that a denial of access is an admission of existence. I have NEVER been told otherwise.

      IF I didn’t honestly believe a denial of access was an admission of existence, THAT would be delusional because THAT’S ALL I HAVE BEEN TOLD: in six different ways.

      Just because Joesting dodged my question after the fact, does not mean that she didn’t tell me PRIOR to my UIPA request being answered that a denial of access is an admission that records exist.

      What state law protects a record that doesn’t exist from disclosure? Please tell me, you delusional psychopath. You are effing crazy if you think there are laws that protect ‘thin air’ and that the Hawaii DOH has sole authority over releasing ‘thin air’ to the public.

      • Jason1776
        Posted March 14, 2010 at 2:46 am | Permalink

        Where have you been told that “a denial of access is an admission of existence?”

        Please, provide exact quotations to that effect. Because I cannot find any such statements in anything the Department of Health has provided you. Or in the responses from the Office of Information Practices, either.

        Have they actually told you that? Or are you paraphrasing?

      • Posted March 14, 2010 at 3:13 am | Permalink

        Please read my “Red Flags in Hawaii” post and look at the links I provide there. I show that all the sources we have say that if the record doesn’t exist the form is to be filled out saying that the record doesn’t exist. As one of the OIP Letters I cite in those documents says, you can’t give a UIPA response for a record that doesn’t exist. The UIPA Manual says the first step an agency takes in answering a request is to see if the record even exists. If it doesn’t they simply mark on the form saying that it doesn’t exist, unless its very existence may not be disclosed – in which case a Glomar response must be issued – a denial of record IF ANY exist.

        There is no place where they come right out and say, “Obama’s birth certificate is amended”. But they have denied access to the records of his amendment – which by every statement we have from any of them at any time means that those records exist. If the DOH wanted to refuse to comment on whether the records existed they had to use a Glomar response, which they didn’t.

        It’s deductive reasoning. If you can’t follow it, don’t waste your time. Just forget it.

      • Jason1776
        Posted March 14, 2010 at 4:23 am | Permalink

        The UIPA Manual says the first step an agency takes in answering a request is to see if the record even exists.

        Doesn’t that strike you as dumb? Why would they check to see if a record even exists when they already know you aren’t authorized to see any, and they already know they will be denying you?

      • MissTickly
        Posted March 30, 2010 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

        You are truly the dumbest f-hole on the face of the earth.

        When I was denied a request for copies both agencies quoted the same law that protects disclosure of vital records. They did not quote a law that protects court sealed records. They did not cite HIPPA laws, they cited a statue that protects VITAL RECORDS from disclosure.

        They did not cite a sttute that protects THIN AIR from disclosurelike you are asserting. IF they did, PLEASE SHOW ME THE STATUTE THEY CITED.

        Furthermore they did not cite a law that protects the knowledge of the existence of a record. On the contrary, Joesting told me that I should be informed if the records I requested copies of did not exist.

        She, herself, did not inform me that the records did not exist. She denied me access to copies of those records.

        So here’s a question for you little dickie, I know you can’t find one place where I was told there were no records responsive to my request.

        I was given that answer on three other requests I made. Why did they NOT give me that answer if it was applicable to my request for copies of receipts, invoices and President Obama’s own UIPA request to access and amend his vital record? YOu must believe they are incompetent or diabolical.

        I’ve asked them to clarify, correct me if I am wrong, etc. Instead, they insisted that I am denied access.

        The DOH and OIP must be so racist to allow people to believe that they actually declined to give me copies of records that prove Obama amended his vital record when they simply do not have any such records, eh?

        Wow, the nerve of them.

        Go back to being braindead you paid dickless obot.

  2. HistorianDude
    Posted March 12, 2010 at 6:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

    My “true colors” are driven by the simple desire to parse fact from speculation. This is an important issue and it demands intellectual precision and rigor. And it appears to be a fact that nowhere, in any correspondence from either the DOH or the OIP can there actually be found an “admission” along the lines of TerriK’s or your assertions. They do not exist.

    In two notes of of counsel by Joesting, she never once “admits” that an amendment exists, and once even goes out of her way to observe that the DOH response suggests that it may not.

    In the two OIP appeal rulings, neither could possibly comment on Obama’s records since they are appeals for other unrelated cases. Whatever they do or do not “admit” they can have nothing to say about an amendment to Obama’s birth record.

    The OIP booklet is a booklet, and can hardly make a specific admission when it addresses only generalities. It cannot admit that a an amendment exists to a record or for a person it does not even address.

    In the two distinct OIP opinion letters (and several more which cite them) not one of them makes any “admission” that an amendment exists. They instead pass that buck firmly to the DOH, suggesting that she should do something… but that it is her responsibility to do it, not theirs. These letters provide the OIP’s opinion on what Fukino “should do” not what she “must do.” And all we factually know is that Fukino did not do it.

    The discussion of TerriK’s personal interpretation of the use of the words “if any” is binding on nobody, is not a required component of any “Glomar response,” and was never specifically noted as meaningful in any OIP response, letter, appeal or comment.

    The existence of an amendment actually IS directly contradicted (if not “refuted”) by the COLB itself, which as we all know (and as you complain repeatedly) does not have the legally required notice of an amendment .

    And if anybody can read TerriK’s prolix, convoluted and opaque e-mail as a “point blank” question, they don’t know what “point blank” actually means. That only compounds the obvious fact that she has been labeled a “vexatious requestor” and Joesting’s response is appropriate to that label.

    Now again, Nellie, I did not come here to argue… only to understand in detail the difference between what is factual in your argument and what is extrapolation (warranted or otherwise). And I understand the deep personal and emotional investment you have made in pursuing this issue. But I have lost track of the number of times I have read and reread both Terri K’s correspondence and yours, and I simply cannot find the “admissions” that you repeatedly insist are contained within them.

    I may have multiple degrees, but I am also still a plumber’s son who can tell the difference between what somebody says and what they do not. And between the DOH and OIP, the only explicit point blank statements they have made are these:

    1) Obama’s original birth certificate exists and is on file in accordance with regulations.
    2) Obama was born in Hawaii.
    3) Obama is a natural born citizen.

    If you can point me to anywhere in any of your or TerriK’s or your correspondence where those point blank statements are contradicted, I would very much love to see it. I myself cannot find an example.

    • MissTickly
      Posted March 30, 2010 at 5:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      You, too, are pure garbage, you pathetic, filthy piece of dogsh*t.

      “And if anybody can read TerriK’s prolix, convoluted and opaque e-mail as a “point blank” question, they don’t know what “point blank” actually means. That only compounds the obvious fact that she has been labeled a “vexatious requestor” and Joesting’s response is appropriate to that label.”

      Obvious? Where was I labeled vexatious? Where? Where on earth does Joesting say that? Is that a quote or are you paraphrasing, limp-dick? Just curious? Does your supervisor tell you to what to say or is your entire waking life a delusion?

      Please do not speak on people ‘misconstruing’ others’ words again.

      OR are you just another hateful, misogynistic OBOT pig who believes he speaks for all women?

      Talk about putting words in someone’s mouth and pulling sh*t outta your flabby, disgusting ass.

      • Posted April 9, 2010 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

        Sorry for the delay in approving the comments. My e-mail alerts are getting swallowed. An e-mail yesterday simply vanish into thin air. I watched the message being received, I saw the notice that 1 new message had been received, but I could not find it anywhere. I knew my e-mail was being monitored because I also sent myself a message from my husband’s computer 4 days ago and it has never arrived. And I’ve seen a message disappear like that once before. Apparently somebody swallowed 2 of my e-mail requests for moderation.

        You alerted me before that my e-mail had taken several days to get to you. It doesn’t seem like they’re targeting my outbox now. But I can document 3 times now in the last week that they’ve targeted my inbox.

        Welcome to Obama’s USSA. The fact that we have no way to stop them from doing this kind of crap brings me back to my original point: this is a lawless regime and if we don’t fight the lawlessness we will deserve what’s coming to us.

  3. Seinfeld
    Posted March 12, 2010 at 9:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Reminds of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer went to a Chinese restaurant and had to wait for a table.

    Jerry: Why did that man who just came in get a table ahead of us.

    Matr’d: Oh, that Mr. Johnson. He very nice man.

    Jerry: What do you mean? I’m sure he’s very nice. Why did he get a table before us?

    Matr’d: Oh, he always here.

    That’s not the exact quotes, but you get the point. The DOH and OIP are backed into a corner with the tangled web of lies they have woven. The only recourse now is to claim – we’re too busy to answer – then wait for the legislature to authorize them to label people as “vexatious requesters.” This is outrageous behavior (borderline criminal) on the part of any government agency.

    Now that Fukino has testified in an official deposition that Barack Obama has made his brith certificate public on his campaign’s website, she can no longer deny requests for his birth certificate on the grounds of protecting his privacy. So now what’s her excuse?

    • Jason1776
      Posted March 12, 2010 at 10:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’m not clear on this point. How does Fukino’s testimony on one hand change her legal obligations elsewhere? Exactly?

      I’m not sure I understand your reasoning here.

    • ksdb
      Posted March 13, 2010 at 6:10 am | Permalink | Reply

      I don’t believe the reason for denying requests was ever based on protecting privacy and was instead that the law supposably prevents her from disclosing information contained on vital records (even though the law doesn’t actually say that). If there was such an exemption, it doesn’t require Fukino to public admit that Obama posted his alleged COLB … plus she never said his COLB was authentic.

      • Jason1776
        Posted March 13, 2010 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

        Didn’t the OIP agree that she was correct in denying those requests?

      • Posted March 14, 2010 at 1:40 am | Permalink

        Yes, Linden Joesting of the OIP said Okubo was correct in denying those requests. That is significant because Joesting is the person who told Terri K/Miss Tickly that if the records didn’t exist the proper response would be for the DOH to say the records don’t exist. For her to say that their denial was proper is confirmation that they gave the correct answer – a denial of access to records that exist.

      • ksdb
        Posted March 15, 2010 at 4:11 am | Permalink

        Jason, focus. The OIP has nothing to do with my comment.

  4. kj
    Posted March 13, 2010 at 5:42 am | Permalink | Reply

    MissTickly:

    Is there a summary of what you managed to get out of the Hawaii DOH posted somewhere? If so, please provide a link. My memory is not that good and I didn’t copy everything down.

    Specifically for the moment: Did you find out that the date on the birth record had been amended? If so what was the date of the amendment ?

    • MissTickly
      Posted March 14, 2010 at 3:43 am | Permalink | Reply

      Butter probably has all of the fruit of my searches already posted here….=)

      Correct me if I am wrong, Butter…

  5. HistorianDude
    Posted March 15, 2010 at 4:20 pm | Permalink | Reply

    What is it about anti-Obama websites that none of you can survive without censoring opposing viewpoints?

    • Posted March 15, 2010 at 5:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’m not censoring anything. I’m just letting you know that I don’t need to hear you say something ten zillion times. You’ve made your case. I’ve made mine. No need to go round and round. It only clouds the relevant points.

  6. LoCicero
    Posted March 26, 2010 at 5:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Butterdezillion:

    Did you receive my confidential email?
    Is it of any help?

    loricci@lycos.com

    • Posted March 26, 2010 at 5:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

      When did you send it? I didn’t receive anything. I’ll send you an e-mail that you can reply to so I get it on my private e-mail.

  7. J.Landsdowne
    Posted April 12, 2010 at 4:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Did anyone else receive a letter recently from the State of Hawaii, Dept. of Human Services? Signed by Pankaj Bhanot, Division Admistrator? Whited out above the return address is, “LIHEAP”. Also, they must be on a shoe string budget, the mailing label is cut out from plain white paper & 3 pcs of scotch tape used to adhere it. Letter thanks me for my letter of March 1, 2010 (the petition?), says they (DHS) referred my ltr “to us”, says issue of Pres.Obama’s cert.of birth needs to be addressed to DOH, Dr. Fukino & will forward the ltr for her review. 3rd paragraph says , “due to confidentiality, the DHS is not able to confirm or deny that any records exist for Pres. Obama or his family. You will need to obtain a “consent to release” before any information can be released”. Leaves his ph# (808) 586-5230.
    cc’d are: Dr.Fukino, DOH & Lillian B. Koller, Dept. of Human Services
    This letter is dated April 1! It came almost 2 wks after Sen. Fred Hemmings ridiculous letter

One Trackback

  1. […] I wanted to include a few interesting excerpts from Nellie’s blog concerning Terri K’s communications with a staff attorney at the OIP: …“Yes, you may ask for a copy of the invoice and receipt. If the agency has the documents […]

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: