DOH Confirms ALL Records Denied

The DOH Confirms That They Denied Access to Everything Terri Requested

This post tells the wide-angle story of Terri’s dealings with the DOH and OIP. The latest development is in
red.

PART ONE: OFFICE OF INFORMATION PRACTICES ATTORNEY, LINDEN JOESTING, TWICE CONFIRMS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SHOULD SAY IF THEY DO NOT HAVE THE REQUESTED RECORDS

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Joesting responded that same day with (emphasis mine):

 

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

 

Thank you for your inquiry.

 

Later that day Terri clarified and further queried with this response:

 

“Thank you. I understand she didn’t make any reference to an ‘amended’ record, however she did make reference to more than one record “original vital records”(plural). I suppose I understand that to mean there MUST be an amended record and supportive material (vital recordS). Otherwise, why would more than one record need to be seen verifying the President is a natural born citizen and/or born in Hawaii. A simple original long form birth certificate would do it….”

 

“…Could you also tell me if this is a valid request if you haven’t already answered my earlier email?

 

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

 

And Joesting responded the same day (again, emphasis mine):

 

“You also asked if: Could you also tell me if this is a valid request if you haven’t already answered my earlier email?

  1. I request an electronic copy of the invoice and receipt for the claiming to represent him, for amendments made to his vital records.

     

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

 

PART TWO: JOESTING WAS MERELY STATING THE RULES THE OFFICE OF INFORMATION PRACTICES HAS IMPOSED ON ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN IMPLEMENTING THE UNIFORM INFORMATION PRACTICES ACT (UIPA). IF THE AGENCY DOES NOT MAINTAIN THE RECORD THEY ARE REQUIRED TO SAY SO.

 

Part IV of the UIPA Manual describes the process an agency may use to answer a UIPA request. Page 32 includes as part of the FIRST STEP (emphasis mine):

 

B. Determine if the Agency or a Unit of the Agency Maintains the Record.

The agency must make an initial determination of whether any unit or division of the agency “maintains” the requested record. As explained above, an agency “maintains” a government record if the record is in the physical possession of the agency and/or under its administrative control.

 

Under OIP’s administrative rules, if one unit or division receives a request for a record that is maintained by another unit or division within the agency, then it must forward the request to the appropriate unit or division. The time for response to the request will then begin to run once the request is received by the unit or division that maintains the record. See Haw. Admin. R. §2-71-13(d).

 

Pages 38-39 of the same document say (highlighted emphasis mine):

 

The Notice to Requester must include the following information as applicable: ….

 

(3) Where agency is unable to disclose the record or part of the record, the notice must
state that:

 

(a) The agency does not maintain the record;

 

(b) The agency requires a further description or clarification of the requested record to identify and search for the record; or

 

(c) The request requires the agency to create a summary or compile information not readily retrievable.

 

PART THREE: RULINGS BY THE OIP SAY THAT A DENIAL MUST HAVE A GLOMARIZED RESPONSE IN ORDER TO AVOID CONFIRMING THE EXISTENCE OF THE RECORD BEING WITHHELD.

 

OIP Opinion Letter 07-01 says (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).”

 

Now-OIP Director, Cathy Takase, explained the use of the “if any” statement I received from the DOH 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.”

 

Without the Glomarized “if any” statement, a denial of access to a record is an acknowledgment of that record’s existence.

 

 

PART FOUR: THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DENIED ACCESS TO RECORDS OF OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE AMENDMENT. THE DOH CLARIFIED ON MARCH 23, 2010 THAT THEY DENIED ACCESS TO ALL THE RECORDS TERRI REQUESTED, WHICH SHE ENUMERATED FOR THEM AGAIN.

On Aug 19 , 2008 Terri K sent this request:

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

The next day she sent to add this:

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        

She followed shortly after with this:

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

Thx        

And this:

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

On Sept 3, Department of Health Communications Director, Janice Okubo, replied with this:

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.

Much later, Terri double-checked with the DOH to clarify exactly what records they were denying access to. On March 8, 2010 she wrote:

Dear Ms. Okubo and Ms. Takase:

I received the attached denials from the DOH and on appeal with the OIP to my UIPA request of August 18, 2009. However the particular records to which I was denied access, were not specified per the OIP administrative rules [§2-71-14(b)(1)].

This is the reference I received to the records that I requested, but it is not specific to my actual UIPA request (attached and also below):

“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.” -Ms. Okubo

I did not request “President Obama’s birth certificate” and that was the only specific record mentioned in the denial.

Please specify exactly which records to which I was denied access per that rule. Below are the records I requested that day:

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.

Thanks for your help!

It should be noted here that the UIPA Booklet (p 38) requires that each part of a request must be handled individually, with the proper request given for each part:

(2) Where agency is denying access to all or part of a record, the notice must identify:

(a) The specific record or part that will not be disclosed; and

 

(b) The §92F-13 exception that allows withholding (and any other applicable laws) and a brief explanation (a few words) of why the agency cited that exception.

 

On March 23, Okubo responded (carbon-copied to Cathy Takase): (emphasis mine)

 

Aloha (redacted),

Your request was denied in its entirety.  All the information available to the public regarding the records you are requesting is available at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

The site provides an explanation and links to the law that restrict access to records for vital statistics.  “Public health statistics” includes the registration, preparation, transcription, collection, compilation, and preservation of data pertaining to births, adoptions, legitimations, deaths, fetal deaths, morbidity, marital status, and data incidental thereto. [L 1949, c 327, §2; am L 1951, c 92, §1; RL 1955, §57-1; HRS §338-1; am L 1973, c 17, §5; am L 1975, c 66, §2(1); am L 1982, c 112, §2; gen ch 1985; am L 1987, c 100, §1; am L 1993, c 131, §1; am L 2009, c 11, §44]

 

PART FIVE: WHEN TERRI APPEALED THE DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE OFFICE OF INFORMATION PRACTICES, LINDEN JOESTING CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS A PROPER DENIAL OF ACCESS.

 

OIP Opinion Letter 97-08 concludes by saying that (emphasis mine):

 

The UIPA provides that information contained in government records is open for public inspection and copying unless some exception to disclosure applies. Based on what the OIP believes was a reasonable search by Deputy Wolsztyniak,
the OIP concludes that the Corporation Counsel does not maintain the information
you requested as a government record. The UIPA applies only to existing records.

 

We’ve already seen that the UIPA Booklet requires an agency to say if the requested records don’t exist. Joesting twice told Terri K that was the proper response if the records did not exist. Joesting’s official response to Terri’s appeal came on Sept 17th and stated that the DOH had denied access based on the idea that “related” documents are considered part of the vital “record” to which access is restricted. She stated that their understanding was correct.

 

The above-cited OIP Opinion Letter, 97-08, involved an agency which denied access to a document which didn’t actually exist. The first step the OIP attorney made in deciding the case was to request to see the document in question – since a denial of access is an acknowledgment that the record exists. The OIP went through the same steps as the agency is required to go through, in order to determine what the correct response should be. The final opinion letter says that the agency’s response was ambiguous because they denied access to a record which doesn’t exist.

 

Joesting presumably went through the same process to determine the correct response to Terri’s request. She had already told Terri that the proper response if the requested records didn’t exist would be a statement that they didn’t exist. The OIP Rules say that a notice must be given to the requestor saying that they can’t disclose the records because they don’t have them, if that is the case. If the existence of the records isn’t discloseable a Glomarized denial would be the proper response.

 

Joesting’s final answer didn’t say that the DOH’s denial was ambiguous because the denied records didn’t actually exist. Nor did she say that the existence of the records was not discloseable. She said that access to the records was denied – a denial that is only proper if the records exist. And she said the DOH interpretation was correct.

 

Terri K consulted with attorney Leo Donofrio, who confirmed that the denial of access was a statutory confirmation of the record’s existence.

 

Later, in response to claims that she had misunderstood or read too much into Joesting’s response, Terri contacted Joesting again, asking for clarification of whether the denial of access is confirmation that the requested records exist. The full account of that interaction is posted here , but the summary is that after asking clarifying questions for several days Joesting suddenly responded with this:

 

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.

 

To summarize, Terri K asked Joesting twice whether she could ask for the records and was twice told that she could and that she should be told if the records don’t exist. The OIP rules require an agency to say if the requested records don’t exist. A Glomarized response is required to avoid a denial actually confirming a record’s existence. The procedure for the OIP to rule on an appeal of a records denial such as Terri’s involves the attorney seeing the actual records being denied. Terri gave the DOH the opportunity to change their answer or to clarify which records were being denied and the DOH confirmed that everything she requested was being denied (and thus exists). Terri gave Linden Joesting an opportunity to say her statements had been misunderstood but she declined to correct Terri’s understanding that a denial of access is statutory confirmation of the requested record’s existence.

Terri has done everything possible to double-check the content posted about her requests and responses on this blog, and nobody will say that there was a misunderstanding. Everyone stands by their original answers – which mean that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

41 Comments

  1. Charlene
    Posted March 27, 2010 at 10:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

    eXCELLENT WORK! God bless you! Keep it up! I admire your perserverance! This has been such a mess and has impacted my life like no other politics in my life!

    • Posted March 28, 2010 at 3:01 am | Permalink | Reply

      Thank you. I think this whole ordeal has been a wake-up call for lots of us. We who love America have to hang together.

  2. MissTickly
    Posted March 27, 2010 at 11:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

    THANK YOU SO MUCH. Wow. You really put alot of thought and work into this post, it’s a very good compilation of EVERYTHING–there are even facts here that I wasn’t aware of.

    Where to go from here? I know you will keep digging but please don’t burn yourself out.=) Thanks again for putting it all together…

    • Posted March 28, 2010 at 3:06 am | Permalink | Reply

      You’re welcome. I’m glad you like it. I wanted to live up to the trust you placed in me.

      Something happened today that makes me see light at the end of the tunnel. We’ll see how it pans out but I think there may be a way this can come to the right ending. Until then, I’ll keep plugging away. =)

  3. Dirtracer
    Posted March 28, 2010 at 5:16 am | Permalink | Reply

    Nellie and TerriK, I admire your tenacity and investigative fortitude. I check this blog every day and look forward to every new posting. I am elderly now but had a long career in law enforcement as well as being a licensed private detective. The investigative technique that you both employ as well as your keen abilities to analyze the evidence of written responses at times boggles my mind. Please accept my thanks for pursuing this worthy fight. I sincerly see a day when this blog will report the close of this investigation and the criminal prosecution of the offenders involved in this assault on our Constitution and Country.

    • Posted March 28, 2010 at 1:11 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Thank you. I hope and pray that will be the end result.

      As a LE person, is there any insight you can offer regarding how we could make it easier and more likely for law enforcement at every level to pursue an investigation of these things? What kinds of evidence and encouragement is most likely to make a difference? Feel free to post anything you like, and if you say in the post that you don’t want it in public and/or you’d like to communicate via private e-mail I’ll e-mail you back rather than putting the post on the board. I do not share e-mail addresses with anyone without the express permission of the person.

      I really appreciate you and all who care about this issue. I believe that if we stand together and keep informing our friends and neighbors we can get the public to a point where they demand some answers – which can only be good for this country, whose very survival depends on an earnest and informed citizenry.

  4. thinkwell
    Posted March 28, 2010 at 5:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hello B,

    As I see it, our current governmental crisis really is about the rule of men (Obama and his minions) being allowed to supersede the rule of law (especially the most basic requirements of our Constitution). Certainly there may be cases of silly or outmoded local law that are rightfully ignored, but I believe every bit of our national Constitution should be followed to a “T” (including the wise provisions laid out for its guarded amendment from time to time).

    The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land that is the foundation that supports all other law and is the bulwark that protects We the Sovereign Citizens of our nation from an out-of-control government.

    I have begun following your blog because you are able to make so much sense out of the trickery the hypocritical Hawaiian “public servants” have been throwing out in their criminal attempts to hide the evidence of Obama’s nearly certain usurpation.

    How they can look themselves in the mirror each day is beyond me. I sincerely hope soon when they do so they will be seeing the cold steel bars of their prison cells in the background and that this will be at least partially a direct result of your tireless efforts in of pursuit of truth, justice and the American way (yes, you are a “superwoman”).

    You have been using the terms “Glomarized” and “Glomar response.” These were unfamiliar to me, so I did a little research and found the following link that may of interest to you (although you probably already have it):

    http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_VII_1/page3.htm

    This is a reasonably tidy Department of Justice definition of Privacy “Glomarization” as is being questionably applied against you and Terry K by Obama’s co-conspirators in Hawaii.

    The way I read it, Glomarization cannot be used protect anything the existence of which has already been established. Also, the policy states that Glomarization “is justified only when it is determined that there is a cognizable privacy interest at stake and that there is insufficient public interest in disclosure to outweigh it.” Certainly there is a great, very legitimate public interest in knowing whether a putative President indeed meets Constitutional muster with regard to his or her natural born citizenship. And, it can be reasonably argued that Obama and his Hawaiian minions have effectively waived any privacy rights by what has already been disclosed via their various public statements, including Obama’s legal stooges having made reference to his online purported COLB in at least one of the many court challenges to his legitimacy.

    In fact, this principle is explicitly stated in the Glomar policy: “if the third-party subject of a request has provided the requester with a waiver of his privacy rights, then privacy exemptions cannot be invoked on his behalf as regards that requester.” And: “there is a weighty public interest compelling disclosure of records which reflect formal and final agency determinations of official misconduct by senior government employees.”

    Glomarization is just another inappropriate and most likely illegal smokescreen being used here to do more evil in thwarting your legitimate requests. I know life isn’t always fair, but I do so look forward to the day of reckoning for Obama and his minions in Hawaii.

    Thanks for what you do and Best Regards — tw

    • thinkwell
      Posted March 28, 2010 at 6:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It was in a footnote on page 2 of “Hollister v. Soetoro – Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint” that Obama’s attorneys referred to the online COLB:

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/11514165/Hollister-v-Soetoro-Motion-to-Dismiss-Plaintiffs-Complaint

      Quote:

      President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper). […]

      Perhaps it may be worth it to directly link/refer to Obama’s official Motion to Dismiss footnote (as well as the DOJ Glomarization policy) in a FOI direct request for Obama’s COLB. That should make the heads of the Hawaiian DOH lawyers explode. Just a thought. 🙂

      • Posted March 28, 2010 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

        Thanks for posting that. So Obama’s own lawyers have attributed the Factcheck COLB directly to Obama himself. That is huge. There is no way he can back down by saying somebody else “produced” the Factcheck forgery. His own lawyers name him as the perpetrator in an official court document. Wow.

        The trouble with dealing with the DOH is that they act like they already answered your request even when you show them that disclosure is required for what they just refused to disclose. There are only 2 ways to deal with them:

        1. J udicial appeal of their denial . But what are the odds of getting a judge with the balls to obey the law when Obama may well have put in some fine print making federal funding dependent on them keeping quiet. UIPA says that Hawaii law can be disobeyed if obeying it would put federal funding at risk. Actually, when Obama signed a presidential order (shortly after Fukino’s “natural-born” announcement) for programs to further the opportunities for Pacific-Islanders including native Hawaiians, he created a situation where federal funding depended on Hawaii withholding the documents we’ve been requested – because if they disclose the documents Obama will be known to be ineligible and any action that depended exclusively on him would be nullified. By personally ordering money to be given to benefit native Hawaiians, Obama made federal funding dependent on him not being proven ineligible. That could technically give Hawaii officials an “out” for denying the records.

        But they should have to say out loud in front of everybody that this is why they are able to obey Hawaii laws. Maybe you’re right. Maybe this is exactly the approach we need to take. That would be the only defense they could offer.

        Oh, who am I kidding? A judge can make up some blah-blah-blah about the words not meaning what the words say. Nothing really means anything any more.

        2) Criminal investigation and prosecution. I’ve been told by a lawyer on Free Republic that this could be done by any prosecuting attorney in the US – US attorney, AG, or DA’s – since the illegal actions (of the DOH and of Obama) have tampered with a federal election which impacts everybody in the US. This could have more possibilities because it doesn’t depend on anybody in Hawaii. Right now the whole system in Hawaii appears to be corrupt. Maybe there’s a state somewhere in the union that is better. Anybody have a state they’d like to nominate? =)

      • ksdb
        Posted March 29, 2010 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

        I always found it strange that the lawyers would point to a third-party Web site about the birth certificate instead of producing the certificate itself, since it has prima facia value IF presented in court. The second thing that’s weird is that they say this amateur fact-checking Web site determined the birth certificate was genuine because of a birth announcement being in the newspaper, not that the document itself was confirmed to be authentic by checking with the issuing agency. Then they follow in the footnote by asking the judge to look at an out-of-court news report that does nothing to specifically confirm the alleged COLB as genuine. Wouldn’t it make more sense just to show the COLB itself directly to the court?? There’s an obvious reason why they didn’t.

    • Posted March 28, 2010 at 6:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Thank you. That gives me more to think about. The balance is supposed to tip toward disclosure in Hawaii if there is a “scintilla” of public interest in disclosure. I don’t think Hawaii knows the meaning of that word.

      Interesting to read in the link you provided that even in cases of criminal investigations where there is the largest privacy interest of all, public interest in disclosure outweighs privacy interests where the conduct of the actual government officials is in question.

      I think I’ve noted here plenty of reasons why records disclosure are in the public interest – because it seems clear that DOH officials have publicly endorsed what they knew was a forgery, particularly on their very website which says that Obama disclosed his COLB. In Hawaii, endorsing a document known to be fraudulent is considered to be forgery. Because they have endorsed the Factcheck image, Hawaii officials now need to answer for what is legally considered their OWN forgery.

      When I asked Okubo directly whether she would report a known forgery rather than speaking positively about it, she responded by saying that HRS 338-18 forbids her from revealing ANYTHING about a vital record. If she had truly followed what she says is the law, she would have said to the reporters, “Hawaii law forbids me to comment on any individual’s vital record or what they claim is their vital record.”

  5. thinkwell
    Posted March 28, 2010 at 9:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hello Butterdezillion (and Terri),

    Are basic UIPA requests still free at this point (written or email requests that only require an email response, possibly with pdf attachments)?

    Did the HDOH and government completely back off the vexatious requester nonsense (at least for now)?

    Is the investigative work you (and Terri) are doing costing any significant money in addition to a lot of time and stress?

    Regards — tw

    • Posted March 29, 2010 at 2:35 am | Permalink | Reply

      UIPA requests are free unless the time to search would cost more than $30 worth of labor. Those parameters are set by the OIP and haven’t changed, although the DOH for a time claimed they were going to charge $7.50/per person event for index data. They’ve apparently backed off of that, although when I confronted Okubo about it and asked to see the hearing notices and official approval process to make those changes Okubo said they can change fees at will. Apparently somebody else set her straight. I’d enjoy finding out who did that and how. =)

      For now the “Vexatious Requestors Bill” has been dropped. They don’t have time to act on it any more.

      The investigation has not cost me significant money except as a complication from me devoting so much time to it (not getting coupons clipped, etc). To go any further with the UIPA requests that are the most significant would require a lawsuit to appeal the denials, which would cost money. John Charlton at The Post & E-mail ( http://www.thepostemail.com ) has a fund he’s collecting for in order to eventually file suit. There are two problems we face. First is whether there’s a judge in Hawaii that hasn’t been bought off. Second is that there is a 2-year window for UIPA appeals to be made so, for instance, next August-September (2011) would be the latest that Terri could file a judicial appeal for anything she asked for. I can’t remember the exact amount but I believe it cost over $400 for Charlton to get the complete records of all the UIPA requests – which proved that Fukino perjured herself when she testified in the committee hearing that they receive an average of 50 e-mail requests for Obama’s birth certificate each month. That UIPA request was paid for out of the funds The Post & Email had collected. I know John also had to use money to get the website protected because his server was going to boot him. So I don’t know how much is left in the fund or how much more is needed before we can file judicial appeals for records – the most important one being a request to see the records on which Fukino based her statement that they have vital records verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a “natural-born American citizen”.

      The DOH and ombudsman together are really trying to back-pedal on that one – claiming that she could make that statement simply because they have Obama’s name in their birth index, the implication being that she didn’t actually look at the records themselves (most probably because they don’t want to have to show the actual vital records if sued in a judicial appeal; much easier if they can just show an index record saying “Obama II, Barack Hussein, male, birth”).

      The trouble in trying to refute those claims is that they refuse to explain how they do their index data for various scenarios. By law they don’t have to create documents or answer questions – only show what documents they already have, and they say they have no documents describing their procedures, requirements, or protocols. They have no training manuals. Their entire office supposedly operates on the fly.

  6. SapphireSunday
    Posted March 29, 2010 at 6:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Great work. The policy for glomar responses says, “for those whose identities are not public.” It seems obvious that Obama’s identity is public. So whose identity is being kept confidential by the glomar response? I don’t get it. They could redact the information for parents; however, he’s already released that information, so their identities are also public. Unless one or the other is not his parent. Or maybe both.

    Since Obama has already put the “birth certificate” on the Internet, and since his lawyers referenced that as fact in a legal proceeding, it seems that he must have already waived any privacy right with regard to the item known as his COLB. Therefore, DoH should have no reason to deny any member of the public access to another Obama COLB. Right? IF they produce another one and IF his original records have been amended, that WILL BE NOTED somewhere on the COLB. The only reason they might object to producing another one is that they KNOW that something on it will NOT match the information on the FactCheck COLB.

    ksdb: the Hawaiian statutes that were in effect when he was born mentioned instances where a birth certificate could NOT be prima facie evidence in a court of law. Among those are cases where the information for the birth certificate was not filed within the timeframe specified in the statutes or, perhaps, was never filed.

    This would include a birth registration based upon an affidavit, but never completed, meaning that the certificate remained in a pending state, awaiting supplementary information, such as proof of the facts avowed in the affidavit.

    It also includes cases where the supplementary information came too late to meet the statutory deadline.

    So if the supplementary information came too late or perhaps never, then the birth registration cannot be prima facie evidence because it lacks the necessary proof of accuracy. If the registration is still in a “pending” state, then it can’t be evidence in court.

    • Posted March 29, 2010 at 8:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Was the “those whose identities are not public” comment from OIP Opinion Letter 07-01? That dealt with one of the specifics of the case in question. The person’s name on a firearms registration list was supposed to be confidential. So the protected information was the person’s identity because their identity was supposed to be protected.

      But you’ve applied the principle correctly. Obama has already made public (which, according to the OIP, means that the information has been PUBLISHED) the information on the COLB he published so there is no privacy interest remaining for that. So yes, you are absolutely right on that.

      The DOH responses have actually made it clear that Obama added to his birth certificate because it wasn’t complete originally. I’m almost positive I know what he added and why, as well as the timeframe involved and what pressed his various actions. The responses the DOH has given leave very little leeway for it to have been anything else. The language used in each request and response is incredibly important. If the DOH has been truthful in their responses, the sworn statement which “verifies” a Hawaii birth is on the certificate itself but is not the signature of a doctor, which makes it almost certain it was submitted by Madelyn Dunham. Her information was incomplete, though, and because neither Ann nor Obama was in Hawaii at the time to be examined by a doctor, the local registrar could not complete the certificate. Obama didn’t even have a completed birth certificate until 2006, when he submitted a non-sworn document which provided the missing information. The particular amendment that was made actually reveals that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii as that same certificate claims. When I think it’s safe to give more details I’ll explain myself.

      • MissTickly
        Posted March 29, 2010 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

        *perk*

        Go Nellie, go!=)

      • SapphireSunday
        Posted March 30, 2010 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

        Awaiting with bated breath your proclamation of what was amended. We all hope it isn’t too long before you feel safe enough to reveal it. I’m at a loss, myself. So many possibilites. So few actual facts.

  7. SapphireSunday
    Posted March 29, 2010 at 6:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Remember Fukino’s use of the word “verifying” in her statement about “vital records.” The legal definition of “to verify” means authenticated by way of affidavit or oath. Affidavit, pending supplementary information?

  8. HistorianDude
    Posted March 30, 2010 at 3:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Isn’t it ironic that my comments here have been repeatedly censored because they supposedly “say nothing new,” and yet post after post says nothing new?

    Once again, reading this redundant miasma of liberal interpretation, wild speculation and incomprehensible reasoning only leaves the careful observer with one key observation; there is no “there’ there.

    Never once in all of those exchanges does the DoH or OIP “admit,” “confirm,” “verify,” “agree,” “concede,” “concur” or even merely “hint” that Obama’s birth certificate has ever been amended.

    We still have only two direct statement from any of these officials regarding Obama’s birth certificate and status. The first is that it really exists, and the second is that Obama was born in Hawaii. the statements are official and authoritative.

    Nothing exists that contradicts them.

    • Posted March 30, 2010 at 3:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Every post except those who asked not to have their post made public has been approved. People can decide for themselves whether I’ve “censored” anything worthwhile that you’ve said. But I’m not going to engage with the same arguments over and over again. People can make up their own minds. The evidence and arguments are out there for all to see. I have more but it’s not time to disclose it yet.

    • SapphireSunday
      Posted March 30, 2010 at 5:54 pm | Permalink | Reply

      HistorianDude, THE master of repetition. And obfuscation. It’s not what they said; it’s what they didn’t say.

    • MissTickly
      Posted March 30, 2010 at 5:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “We still have only two direct statement from any of these officials regarding Obama’s birth certificate and status. The first is that it really exists, and the second is that…”

      THEY really exist. The “vital records,” plural, that is. Because it took more than one vital record to prove that BHO was born in Hawaii according to Fukino. Not according to me, ACCORDING TO FUKINO’S 7/27/09 STATEMENT. And she has never revised that statement in eight months, if she was mistaken, so don’t give me that crap either.

      One would assume based on Obama’s online COLB that only one vital record would exist: his original birth certificate. Oddly, Fukino said more than one verified his birthplace though.

      Why the multiple vital records?

      Ooooh, but Fukino was likely just being a racist to suggest that they had more than one on file, I am sure.

    • MissTickly
      Posted March 30, 2010 at 6:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

      And BTW, Historian D*ck, you ARE a redundant YAP.

      We get that you think that asking the OIP and DOH directly and having them confirm their answers is NOT enough for you. We know you won’t unlatch from your permanent BJ that you give BHO day in and day out. We know your knees are sore, sore, sore.

      And we get that you believe that the women at the DOH and the OIP should answer for Fukino using the plural “vital records” and that Obama should not answer for himself. We know you want US to get to the bottom of it and not your precious 2″ president.

      We get that you are a misogynistic OBOT pig that speaks for the women in the Hawaii DOH and at the OIP and also for us here on this blog and you can just wish reality into existence–in your delusional world that is.

      We’ve heard your sexist diagnosis that we are all ‘mental’ for understanding and trying to understand what we’ve been told.

      We KNOW that you think a known LIAR and warmongerer like Obama should simply be trusted, BUT we just refuse to trust lying politicians. I understand that THINKING WOMEN frustrate you.

      We know that you are really FOR war, for FISA, for the Patriot Act, for cronyism, for bribes, for favors and for all the things that Obama lied to you about because you knew he was lying and it was ok with you because you just know when to trust him and when not to and so should we.

      Yes, yes. Censored or not, we know you are a gullible, redundant, idiotic YAP.

      Geez.

  9. Dirtracer
    Posted April 1, 2010 at 2:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Like I told Epicurious last night at another site, there are plenty of people that appreciate the detailed investigation that is being done here. It is amazing the amount of effort that must be put into the correspondence with Hawaii. We thank you all! Don’t let a fool get under your skin. Miss Tickly did give the goof a good dressing down though, that I enjoyed.

  10. Jax
    Posted April 7, 2010 at 7:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Wow, considering Miss Tickly is so sensitive to sexism, she sure is homophobic.

    • MissTickly
      Posted April 8, 2010 at 10:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

      @ Jax

      Huh? Homophobic? Are you kidding me? How do you figure?

      Your messiah, Obama, is homophobic, I am actually FOR repealing DADT and following through with it, AND I support gay marriage, gay adoption, gay anything to be perfectly blunt.

      My best friend of 25 years is a gay man.

      You’re a total idiot, Jax.

  11. Larry
    Posted April 11, 2010 at 4:16 am | Permalink | Reply

    Dear Butterdezillion,

    Thank you so much for following up on the amended birth date that TerriK had once posted, and the related info that Leo Donofrio received around the same time. After the Fukino statement(s), these seem to be the most important pieces about O’s Hawaii records discovered by investigators.

    I love the work of the Post & Email, but I sometimes have wondered why they have not dwelt on the amended birth date. I’m very grateful that you are pursuing this route, with TerriK’s input!

    I will watch for future posts with great interest. God bless your work!

  12. HistorianDude
    Posted April 13, 2010 at 8:16 pm | Permalink | Reply

    MissTickly!!! Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

    lol

  13. SapphireSunday
    Posted April 13, 2010 at 8:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Interesting that there’s an index for DELAYED birth certifications, as noted on your April post. So, has anyone asked for index data from THAT file?

    • Posted April 15, 2010 at 1:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’ve asked to see Obama’s delayed birth certificate and they said there isn’t one. The thing about that, though, is that the terminology has changed over time. Now they have what is called a LATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. But the HDOH won’t send me a blank form of the certificate that is created when a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth is converted to a late birth certificate. They say they don’t have it. They are required by law to have it AND to have an explanation of the procedures and protocols they use in processing it.

      Sheer lawlessness.

    • Posted April 15, 2010 at 2:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

      And also I have asked for index data for Obama from every one of the indices listed there. They said that the type of index the name is listed in is not authorized to be released. In response to that, I asked for a non-certified abbreviated BC (COLB) for Obama, as I am expressly authorized to receive according to the admin rules. Their whole line about information not being authorized for release is a bunch of BS – as shown by the fact that ANYBODY is authorized to receive a non-certified COLB, which must contain all the notations of what the legal status of the birth record is. The status of a record is NOT protected from disclosure. To reveal the legal status of a birth claim is precisely why we even HAVE government records on birth.

      • SapphireSunday
        Posted April 15, 2010 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

        Very interesting. What I would take from their explanation (that the type of index the name is listed in is not authorized) is that his name is on an index that contains SEALED information.

        Adoption? That’s the only type of record that’s sealed by law. Right?

        Otherwise, don’t their statutes state that they must provide index data, at the very least?

        I do believe that he was adopted. Perhaps at birth, perhaps later by Soetoro, perhaps both! Either type of adoption would result in the original being sealed. Right? And with that, the sealing of the index data, too.

        A court order, if anyone ever gets one, will bring the truth to light. Or else a patriotic whistle blower. If Berger can swipe documents out of the national archives . . .

      • Posted April 15, 2010 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

        I’m not sure how they do index data with adoptions.

        But I know that the HDOH also claims that non-certified abbreviated certificates are not authorized for release even though it’s written in black and white in their rules that they ARE authorized – and 338-18a (which they cite) says in black and white that the disclosure prohibitions in that paragraph only apply to what HASN’T ALREADY BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE RULES OR LAW.

        So I wouldn’t read too much into their protestations that they can’t say what index the name comes from. At the same time that they’re telling me that, they’re telling my colleague that if there’s any index data at all it means the person was born in Hawaii (which would only be true if they excluded some of the indices from the public index data they release).

        So they consistently talk out of both sides of their mouth when it comes to what is or isn’t authorized for public disclosure. They can’t disclose anything about a birth certificate, but Fukino can make a public statement saying Obama’s BC says he was born in Hawaii… Their story of what they can disclose changes with every wind they blow out their backside. lol.

      • NeConservative
        Posted April 22, 2010 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

        Found you folks today via Freerepublic.com. Have been wondering for some time about this. Is it possible in any way that the Index we’re not allowed to see is that of STATE WARDS? At that time, they may have been called County Wards too. Identities of Wards of the State have been given special treatment akin to Adoption records. I have NO evidence backing this up, just a hunch, and I have a background in Child Protective Services.

      • Posted April 22, 2010 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

        That’s a good question. Since Hawaii already says they have birth index data for Barack Hussein Obama II it seems as if they are saying that they CAN disclose the index data for him so there wouldn’t be any reason for them not to disclose a non-certified abbreviated birth certificate, for instance.

        For a long time I had fretted about the impact of an adoption on all the responses we’ve gotten. But in the case of an adoption, a new birth certificate is given and that BC is treated just like any other BC. If there was a name change it could potentially impact the index records, but I verified with the lt governor’s office that there is no name change order for anybody named Obama, Soetoro, Sutoro, or Dunham.

        It is possible (probable?) that Obama was adopted in Indonesia, but as far as I can tell all the records they have in Hawaii are under the name Barack Hussein Obama II. I specifically asked the OIP what name the HDOH means when they talk about “President Obama” and explained that the question is salient because Obama’s mother has been shown to use lots of combinations of first, middle initial, middle, maiden, and last name which frustrate any attempts to locate her records. The OIP poo-poohed my question as if I was objecting to the use of the term “President”. I have asked for all index data for anybody with the last names of Dunham, Obama, Soetoro, or Sutoro. They gave me a list of names to choose from, omitting some names I know they have index data for so I know their list wasn’t complete. I said I was asking for ALL of it. They dillied and dallied and eventually they changed their (online) rules about how to get index data and that you have to pay for each single piece of data and know exactly who they have index data for before you ask, etc. I pointed out that they had not followed the law in changing that rule so it isn’t really in effect. They changed their website so you don’t have to pay but you have to do everything snail-mail. In the end they never would give me index data showing whether they have any other name which “President Obama” ever went under.

        They do have unadoption in Hawaii – in which case the original birth certificate is reinstated and the BC that had been created after the adoption is sealed. So Obama could have been adopted by Soetoro and then became unadopted after the divorce, reverting back to the BC under the name Barack Hussein Obama II. That would still allow them to have index data for Barack Hussein Obama II. Or he could have been adopted in Indonesia and the adoption was never reported to Hawaii.

        I also asked to see the court order unsealing the birth records for Barack Hussein Obama II and was told that there were no records responsive to my request. So when Fukino said she looked at the vital records for Obama, what she saw was whatever is NOT sealed, if there is a sealed record.

        In any event they have unsealed records which they are using to make their statements so if Obama ever was a ward of the state or adopted, it doesn’t seem to have affected the responses they’ve given.

        Does that make any sense, or just muddy the waters? lol

        I’ve asked to see a copy of pages from the the original birth index (either from the original or from microfilm, since it is required to be retained permanently in one or the other of those forms) and so far they’ve wasted 20 business days by first claiming they didn’t know what I was asking for and then claiming that I was asking to see vital records rather than a government record containing index data. These people are master BS artists. lol. (When I think of the time they’ve stolen from my family because of their shenanigans I am NOT lol-ing though)

  14. SapphireSunday
    Posted April 16, 2010 at 6:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Yes, I’m sure they have been well trained in Alinksy methodology, whereby a person drives an opponent nuts by creating cognitive dissonance, using illogical arguments and non sequiturs.

    If the name on an index means that a person was born in Hawaii, then how can they possibly have an index of “Certificates of Foreign Birth”? Those certificates as well as the “sealed adoption files” are specifically referred to as “vital records.”

    If, for example, he was born elsewhere but adopted in Hawaii by SAD and BHO Sr. (or Lolo), then would his original BC be on file and in the index for certificates of foreign birth, with other records sealed in the adoption file, and a shiny new BC created for him, showing Hawaiian birth, with SAD and BHO Sr. as his parents?

    So, when they answer you, are they truly answering with regard to every index they maintain, or only the specific one that they suppose you must have asked about? (Pretending, deliberately, to misunderstand your question.)

    Interesting that there are also local registrar copies of “vital records.” Might those files be accessible from the local registrar, bypassing the DoH?

    They also maintain the documentary evidence for delayed and late birth certificates.

    And here’s a good one: Certificates that no record of alleged vital record has been found. Oh, that’s my personal favorite. So would these be the pending but never verified birth registrations? If his name is in that file, then of course they won’t tell you that.

    They even maintain a file of court orders for production of vital records, so it has been done before and something tells me under circumstances that are far less important than maintaining the integrity of the office of the POTUS.

    An interesting legal question: In the case of babies born overseas and adopted by Americans, who received a new BC indicating US birth and phony biological parents, are THOSE children NBCs? In my mind, NO. Legally?

  15. SapphireSunday
    Posted April 16, 2010 at 6:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Another thought: Given that there are various departments overseeing these different files and indices, is it possible they are playing games by answering only for files overseen by the Health Resources Admin., for example, excluding the Certified Copies Unit and the Delayed Registration Unit, etc.?

    From which files do they pull information when they create a COLB? There are various files. I’d like to know if pending certificates are thrown into the same database as fully verified certificates.

    If not, then what triggers moving a certificate from the pending file (no records found to verify alleged vital event) to the verified file?

    • Posted April 16, 2010 at 6:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

      UIPA requests that I’ve sent have been directly to the Department of Health so any unit within the Department of Health would be included in that. And the OIP rules say that if a request is made to the wrong department, it is supposed to be forwarded to the correct department and/or the response must say what department would hold the requested record.

      So they’re not supposed to be able to evade that way – although that doesn’t mean they won’t try, or that they will follow OIP’s rules.

  16. thinkwell
    Posted April 23, 2010 at 7:38 am | Permalink | Reply

    Hello Butter,

    I have been following your work here, your FR posts and your Post & Email editorial 🙂 and I just want to let you know how important your sleuthing has been, how logical your thinking seems and how sound your theories appear, at least to me. Please keep heart and stay brave as I am sure you are making a difference, even if it is often difficult to see.

    I also think that you have correctly distilled that, although Obama is a great and unprecedented evil, he is only a symptom of the main danger we face, which is a general breakdown of the rule of law over broad reaches of much of our government. As a country we have allowed ourselves to become dumb, lazy and complacent. So many today have zero knowledge or care of the Constitution.

    Our country’s success in providing for the pursuit of happiness has guilted, distracted and/or blinded far too many to the vicious rending of the very fabric of civil society itself that is the Constitution and the rule of law. My hope is that if the country manages to survive the current crisis, enough people will come to realize that ordinary humans, no matter how good their initial intentions, just can’t long withstand the intoxicating effects of political power. I think enactment of strict one or two term limits for all of Congress is our only hope of avoiding an eventual recurrence of the political corruption cancer.

  17. minutemancdcsc
    Posted April 25, 2011 at 2:33 am | Permalink | Reply

    “Everyone stands by their original answers [to TerriK] – which mean that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended.”

    butterdezillion, their answers mean no such thing; they mean nothing.

    The DOH and OIP are giving you the runaround. They have no intention of giving you any information about Mr. Obama. They may say anything imaginable to put you off for another week, and then another week… and another week… until you finally give up and go away, or failing that, until you become more and more frustrated and madder and madder and madder, until you have a stroke or a nervous breakdown, or you go postal and do something objectionable that gets you hauled into court on your way to prison, or you become such a nuisance that they get a restraining order against you for harassment, or they have a judge order sanctions against your attorney for harassment, or they bring a counter-suit to neuter and neutralize your quest.

    And even after all that, they still don’t give you any information about Mr. Obama.

    They don’t respond in keeping with laws and regulations.

    They don’t play by the rules, but they demand that you do.

    In essence, they recite the rules and regulations very nicely, then go out and do precisely what they want! Because the rules don’t apply to them; they only apply to you. And who would force them to comply with the laws? A.G. Eric Holder and the U.S. Attorneys? The FBI or the HBI? The A.G. of Hawaii? The local magistrate? The police? Not gonna happen. Non-enforcement has de facto nullified those laws on which you depend.

    Sorry to tell you, butterdezillion, but rules and laws are only as good as those who enforce them.

    • Posted April 25, 2011 at 4:25 am | Permalink | Reply

      All I’m doing is showing that either their official words are true and their public statements lies, or else it’s all lies.

      Either way, it reveals the lawlessness, and that is what the people of this nation need to decide whether they will accept. More and more people are waking up to the terrible mess we are in, because – as you say – the rules and laws mean nothing if the people who alone are supposed to be able to enforce them are LAWLESS.

      That’s why this matters so much. We very literally have the choice of whether we will allow the man of lawlessness to take over everything in this country. Anybody who doesn’t discern that is not fit to be a leader in these times.

      From the very beginning I have been saying that if you poo-pooh lawlessness at the acorn or root level then you will be finding lawless branches or a huge oak tree springing up all over the place, and no matter how you hack away at those branches you will never get rid of them; the growth starts at the root and only by tackling the root head-on will you ever get rid of the branches. One by one I’ve heard political commentators bemoan the lawlessness they see, and yet very few of them are willing to come out and admit that the root that begat all this lawlessness that Obama and his thugs have perpetrated on this nation all started with the lies and crimes that allowed him to be installed as POTUS in the first place. That was supposedly this little “acorn” technicality that was too “embarrassing” to warrant concern, and yet from that root came all of this garbage. And even if/when Obama is gone, the root that put him in the White House will still be intact to sprout other devils just as bad – unless we deal with the root, which is the lawlessness.

      If they’re going to bind and gag me and cart me away there’s not much I can do about it. But before they do that, I am going to do everything in my power to expose what this lawless regime and its enablers are all about, in the hopes that the American people will wake up before the boa is so tight around the neck that resistance is futile.

      The HDOH will not be able to harass me into a breakdown or stroke, because I’m not in this to expose Obama. I’m in this to expose THEM. And everything they’ve said and done has exposed them farther. Their own lawlessness is on brilliant display for the whole world to see and be appalled.

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: