OIP Non-Answers Re: Glomar Responses

OIP Non-Answers Regarding Glomar Responses


Reviewing some of the requests & responses, I came across Leo Donofrio’s request for records which had caused the HDOH to say (on the FTS and/or Factcheck COLB’s) that Obama’s birth certificate was filed on Aug 8, 1961 – specifically the records which were in existence before Aug 10, 1961. Leo believed that the HDOH response had confirmed that those records exist. Looking at their responses I wasn’t so sure. Knowing now that the newspaper birth announcements were faked, I know of nothing that shows there was any HDOH birth record for Obama back in 1961 so the question of what the HDOH actually told Donofrio on this question became more important.


I remembered a LOT of responses received by me and others that were so unclear that we had no idea what the HDOH was even saying. When I had asked the OIP about the use of the words “if any” in HDOH responses to me Takase had explained that this was a Glomar response. Once I understood what a Glomar response is and why it is used, I stopped pursuing any of my requests where a Glomar response is appropriate.


Once I understood what requests require a Glomar response, the response to Leo’s request became suspect, because according to the standards they used with my requests, they should have given a Glomar response to Leo’s request – should have refused to reveal any information which is on the actual birth certificate, including the date. So in response to requests for records before Aug 9, 1961 they should have said that the requested records, if any, are protected from disclosure because of HRS 338-18a, unless they accepted the premise that the Factcheck and FTS COLB’s were disclosures by the HDOH and they were thus required to disclose the records maintained by them for the purpose of making that disclosure – in which case HRS 338-18a would be moot.. From their response it seems the HDOH is refusing to accept the premise that the online COLB’s are disclosures by them. Either the HDOH and OIP are misunderstanding or disobeying the rules that disclosures, once made, must be substantiated upon request, or else they are denying that the online COLB’s are from their office.


Anyway, I decided to ask the OIP a general question about what kinds of responses qualify as Glomar responses, giving 3 examples of the kinds of confusing answers I’ve seen from the HDOH and asking whether each one is a Glomar response. Summarizing the exchange, the attorney said that “if any” doesn’t have to be used in a Glomar response but refused to say which of the 3 examples I gave, if any, would be considered Glomar responses. Finally she said she wasn’t going to respond any more and if I wanted help I would need to submit a request for help showing the entire exchange with the HDOH. The conversation I had with the OIP attorney is posted below.


Because the words “if any” don’t have to be used for a Glomar response, that brought up the question of whether the original response to Terri K was really a standard denial as I’ve claimed, or whether it was a Glomar response. OIP Attorney Linden Joesting had said twice that if the records didn’t exist the HDOH should say so and concluded in her final communication that it was a proper denial of access, without saying anything about it being a Glomarized denial. But maybe the HDOH thought they were giving a Glomarized response because even the existence of those records is supposed to be confidential.


But that is shown not to be the case by the HDOH response to a DUPLICATE REQUEST I’ve made. When I had submitted the same request as Terri K had submitted the HDOH gave me a straight-out answer that the records don’t exist – which would be unlawful for them to give me if they thought they could neither confirm nor deny the very existence of those records. That tells me that the HDOH knows a Glomar response is not proper for those records. Their response to Terri K was not a Glomarized response but a denial of access to the records which existed at that time but no longer existed by the time I submitted the same request to the HDOH.


Regarding Leo’s request, I’ve since concluded that Okubo originally gave a Glomar response, then said the records don’t exist, and then Cathy Takase swooped in to say that the HDOH intended to deny access to the responsive records they maintain, which are birth records. So in response to that single request of Donofrio’s there were all 3 possible answers: a Glomar response, a claim that the records don’t exist, and then a claim by Takase that the records do exist. So what can we conclude about the records OR about the HDOH when they answer a single request with “maybe” first, then “no”, and then the OIP interprets the HDOH answers as being “yes”? And then the OIP refuses to clarify whether any of those responses are actually Glomar responses?


I conclude that both the HDOH and OIP are being VEXATIOUS.


And I conclude that the OIP wants to decide what words mean based on something besides just the words. They don’t want to say what the words mean unless they know what record the words apply to. Looking at Takase’s calculation that “maybe + no = yes”, it suggests that maybe the OIP is in charge of damage control.




Here is the entire exchange I had with the OIP Attorney


On 05/10/2010 07:24 PM I sent the following request for help from the OIP Attorney of the Day:


Dear Attorney,

1. Does a Glomar response have to contain the words “if any”? What would be some other ways of denying access to a record without confirming that a record exists?

2. Please indicate whether this is a Glomarized response to a request for a specific record:

“Your response appears to be for a vital record or information related to vital records which is governed by HRS 338-18. Therefore I am unable to provide records responsive to your request.”

3. Please indicate whether this is a Glomarized response to a request for a specific record:

“It is clear that DOH believes that the only responsive records it maintains are birth records and related information, which section 338-18, HRS, protects from disclosure except to the extent an individual has a tangible interest as outlined in that same section… DOH’s responses clearly indicate that you are being denied access to birth records and related information because of the statutory protection afforded under section 338-18, HRS.”

4. Please indicate whether this is a Glomarized response to a request for a specific record:

A note saying that the records are denied, together with a Notice to Requestor noting, as justification for denial, that a verification can not be made.

Thank you.




I received this response:

—– Original Message —–


Tuesday, May 11, 2010 9:31 PM
Re: Question for Attorney of the Day

A Glomar response is not required to include specific magic words.  Rather, the term refers to the general concept of responding in a way that does not definitively state whether an agency does, in fact, maintain any responsive records.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response and http://www.doi.gov/foia/glomar.htm .  

Please be advised that OIP will not make a determination about whether an agency’s response to a UIPA request is proper without reviewing the full request and response and giving the agency an opportunity to present its position.   If you believe an agency response to your UIPA request was incomplete or improper, you can ask that a file be opened on that issue.

Jennifer Z. Brooks
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


On 05/11/2010 04:48 PM I responded with this:

Thank you for your response.


I’m not asking if a response was proper. I’m asking you to translate the governmentese in these types of responses. Are these examples of Glomarized responses? Please bear in mind that communication which nobody understands clearly is the same as no communication at all. The standard denial does not specifically state whether an agency maintains any responsive records either. It is presumed that if the response doesn’t make it clear that it is NOT confirming the existence of records, the records exist. It is up to the responding agency to make clear that they are neither confirming nor denying the existence of the record being denied. There is no need to be secretive about whether a Glomar response is being given or not. If the existence of a record is not discloseable why not just say so plainly? If it is discloseable and the records are being denied, why not say so? Muddling the words is a waste of everybody’s time. It is “vexatious”.




I received this response:

—– Original Message —–


Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: Question for Attorney of the Day

I have already directed you to general information about what a Glomar response is.  I cannot determine whether an agency’s response to a request was proper, or what the agency may have meant by a phrase, without seeing the phrase in the context of the full request and response.  If you believe the responses you quoted or paraphrased from are not proper, you may provide OIP with the original request and the full response you received and seek assistance with the matter.

Jennifer Z. Brooks
Staff Attorney


I responded on 05/12/2010 06:57 PM with:


I am not asking if they are proper. I am asking for a translation of what they mean. Are these examples of a Glomar response, or not? If you asked for a specific document and received these responses, would you conclude that they were denying access to records they have, or would you conclude that they are refusing to say whether they have the document you requested?

Context would make this easier for you because you know what records requests should get a Glomar response. We laypeople who have been making requests don’t know that. We have nothing but the words to go by. So if you were in our shoes and had only the words to go by, what would you conclude as a result of each of these communications? I don’t want to know what the responses should have been. I want to know what these responses ARE. Are these saying “I deny you access to the specific record you requested” or are they saying “I couldn’t give you the record you asked for even if I have it”?

Thank you for clarifying that the “if any” statement isn’t necessary for a response to be Glomarized. I think you’ll agree that using those words would make it a heck of a lot easier for normal people to understand exactly what is being said, which makes me wonder why any department would give a Glomarized response without using those clear words. But since the determination of whether it is a Glomarized response depends on whether the denial is for the exact record requested, I need to know if these types of answers are denials of hypothetical records or of the specific records requested.
If I understand the language I don’t have to bother your office asking about the many responses I’ve received that are similar to these. Contrary to popular opinion, I don’t want to be vexatious. I just want to understand, and the words that have been communicated to me don’t allow me to understand until somebody translates them for me. One of the statutes actually requires departments to explain unfamiliar terminology used on forms so the words can be understood by the person who requested the documents. If the language used in these responses can’t even be understood by an attorney it’s unreasonable to expect a layperson to understand it.

Thank you for any help you can give me.




The final response from the OIP was this:


—– Original Message —–



Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 9:25 PM

Subject: Re: Question for Attorney of the Day


Again, if you wish to question an agency’s response to a request, you may provide OIP with the original request and the full response you received and seek assistance with the matter.
 In light of our other duties, this must and will be OIP’s final response with respect to this inquiry.

Jennifer Z. Brooks
Staff Attorney



  1. ksdb
    Posted May 14, 2010 at 3:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Killer comment: “If the language used in these responses can’t even be understood by an attorney it’s unreasonable to expect a layperson to understand it.”

    It’s sad the state of Hawaii is circling the wagons around Obama and the DOH, worse yet that they passed the vexatious request bill. The governor didn’t have much choice but to sign it as 23 of the state’s 25 senators are Democrats. On the plus side, if I read it correctly, they are not going to try to punish anyone for submitting multiple requests, but basically give the DOH and other departments carte blanche to ignore any request they choose.

  2. Jax
    Posted May 14, 2010 at 4:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Don’t cry, birthers, I’m sure there are plenty of people in the private sector who you can bug the living shit out of for no good reason. Perhaps the counter guy down at Radio Shack would like to hear about your latest ravings.

    • ksdb
      Posted May 14, 2010 at 10:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Put down the kool-aid, faither. When a state changes it’s sunshine laws to protect someone who doesn’t need to be protected, your rights as a citizen are being criminally eroded. Don’t be a fool and make excuses for a fraud.

    • Aussie
      Posted May 15, 2010 at 8:16 am | Permalink | Reply

      if it applies to State law, then what was passed would be called a “bill of attainder”… or at least from what I have seen this could be the case… what I am suggesting is that what was passed could be unconstitutional on the state level?

  3. charlene
    Posted May 14, 2010 at 5:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Maybe their system needs to be overwhelmed some more? Maybe we need to play by good ol Saul,s rules!
    Great job Nelly! Thanks for keeping us informed!!

    • Posted May 14, 2010 at 6:20 pm | Permalink | Reply

      If they continue to refuse to answer requests properly even when they have the time to answer them then I WOULD encourage the floodgates to be let loose on them. If it makes no difference to the quality of their work, why not protest by running them ragged? They need to know that if they won’t cooperate with us we won’t cooperate with them.

      I would give them a week or two, to see what their intentions are. If they show no intention of keeping the law I’d say we should treat them with the same respect they give the laws: none.

      A note of caution: anything you send to their office by snail-mail (such as index data requests which they require to be done by snail mail) make sure you send by certified mail so you have proof that they received the request. Otherwise, they are just ignoring the very snail mail that they require to be used; if you have no proof that they received it they make a sucker out of you. Nice, nice people we’re dealing with here. (cough)

  4. Shirley Beller
    Posted May 15, 2010 at 5:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Consider this, butterdezillion: The ID number on Obama’s COLB is 10641. The ID numbers on the Nordyke birth certificates are 10637 and 10638. These are in extremely close proximity which, to me, says the COLB is totally legit.

    How on Earth would a forger know to include an ID number so close to the Nordykes?

    Please really think about this. Can you supply a logical answer?

    • Posted May 15, 2010 at 7:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

      How did he know? He looked in the paper and saw a child that was born on Aug 4th and died on Aug 5th. He requested a non-certified COLB for that person and the HDOH followed their rules and gave it to him. He took the certificate number that was on the COLB.

      Then he did something really stupid, which proves that the certificate number isn’t his. He changed the “date filed” to a Tuesday – which doesn’t work for a Kapiolani birth because they submitted their BC’s to the state registrar on Friday, and which doesn’t work with that particular certificate number because the number is later than the Nordykes’ (since the original BC having that number was submitted wth the Kapiolani BC’s and was more towards the bottom of the pile because the person was born the day before the Nordykes).

      As I’ve documented throughout the blog, the HDOH has confirmed that FActcheck is a forgery – not just because of the certificate number, but also because the note of the amendment is not on the Factcheck COLB.

      If the HDOH was following their rules I could have proven a LONG TIME AGO who that certificate number belongs to. AND I could tell you Obama’s real certificate number too. That’s precisely why the HDOH illegally hid their rules until November of 2009 and why they steadfastly refuse to obey the critical rule – the one that allowed Obama to perpetrate this hoax in the first place: the one allowing any person to get a non-certified COLB for anybody they want.

      But that’s the thing with corruption. It tends to help the crooks and screw the honest people.

  5. thinkwell
    Posted May 15, 2010 at 9:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hello Bdz,

    Have you considered getting legal help to prod these crooks? I wonder if requests made on an attorney’s official letterhead (with the implied threat of legal action against and prosecution of criminally evasive noncompliance) would make a difference? I would be willing to contact Stephen Pidgeon for this purpose and would even be willing to kick in some cash if needed. I have a very close relative who is a successful attorney whom I could ask for advice and guidance in setting this up.

    You are the best!

    PS: If it’s not to prying to ask, what is the story behind your “butterdezillion” handle?

    • Posted May 16, 2010 at 3:31 am | Permalink | Reply

      I would welcome the input and counsel of an attorney. If they thought it would help I guess anything would be worth a try. Probably the only thing that will get them to obey their laws is when a case is filed and appealed beyond the reach of anybody from Hawaii. If you wouldn’t mind, it would be great if you asked your relative how to go about this and for input regarding what might be most helpful and pursue this with Stephen Pidgeon if you like.

      When I was setting up an account I was in a hurry and wanted something that would reveal my real identity to my family but not necessarily to anyone else. When I was a kid my family used “butterdezillion” to mean the highest number possible. About the time one of us said we loved our mom or dad butterdezillion times, somebody else would say, “Well, I love her butterdezillion and ONE times!” lol. Funny how as kids we grasped eternity so clearly.

      • thinkwell
        Posted May 20, 2010 at 2:17 am | Permalink

        Hello Bdz,

        I finally got through to Stephen Pidgeon today and spoke with him for over half an hour. He and Leo are going to be very busy for the next week, but he very much would like to pursue the question of whether it makes sense to take legal action to force the HDOH to follow the law to provide those certain items you suspect may likely be incriminating. You probably have my private email from this post. Please send me a private message there and I will try to give you all the details in return (not tonight – its my tennis night!).

      • Posted May 20, 2010 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

        Thanks, TW. I e-mailed last night. I hope you enjoyed your tennis night. =)

        If you didn’t mean this post to be public I’ll remove it. I wanted to make sure you knew I had e-mailed. Sometimes my e-mail doesn’t get delivered for a couple of days – especially if it’s a communication important to the Obama eligibility issue, if you know what I mean. Let me know (via a post so I get the notification) if you e-mail so we’re sure there’s no interference coming between our communications. Thanks!

      • thinkwell
        Posted May 26, 2010 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

        Good morning Bdz,

        (Edited until I’m sure what to do – Nellie)

      • Posted May 26, 2010 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

        Thinkwell, I sent you an e-mail this morning. Almost 3 1/2 hours later my ISP sent an “auto reply” saying they couldn’t deliver it to that address, even though it is the same address we’ve been using. I got home from a day of shopping with my family about 1/2 hour ago, saw what happened, and re-sent the e-mail. Did you receive it?

  6. Shirley Beller
    Posted May 15, 2010 at 9:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

    So I’m expected to believe, and you consider this all to be reasonable, I presume:

    1. A baby was born at the hospital on August 4th, then died on August 5th.

    2. Hawaii is in the business of sending out COLBS with ID numbers on them to anyone who asks, as long as it is not certified. You are absolutely sure of that, and you would swear that to be true under penalty of perjury.
    (I’d love to see a link that Hawaii will issue a non-certified COLB to anyone who asks. Kindly provide these exact words.)

    3. The forger was able to do the above, but then, lacking your wisdom, didn’t know that Hawaii submitted their BCs to the state registrar only on Fridays. Hawaii has told you that as well, in those exact words?

    4. ID numbers are issued in STRICT sequence of birth.

    5. Fukino’s statement that she has seen the birth records of Obama and they confirm that he was born in Hawaii is an out-and-out lie.

    You believe all this to be true, and you are not bearing false witness. Do I have that right?

    • Posted May 16, 2010 at 4:52 am | Permalink | Reply

      1. I don’t know that the baby was born at the hospital but I believe the death announcements came from the hospital so it’s probable that the child died in the hospital.

      2. I would swear to anything I’ve written on this blog under penalty of perjury – including that HDOH rules authorize a non-certified COLB to be given to anyone who asks for it. I wouldn’t say that the HDOH is CURRENTLY in the business of doing this because they have refused to send any non-certified abbreviated certificates. But their rules still authorize it and UIPA thus requires it.

      You can see it for yourself. The DOH Administrative Rules (“Public Health Regulations”, Chapter 8b, 2.5(B)(2), found on page 20 at http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf , says (under the heading “Eligibility for Copies of Birth Certificates… Abbreviated Copies”),

      “A non-certified copy containing only such information as is listed in accordance with Section 2.2 may be issued to any person or organization requesting it.”

      When I asked Okubo for documents describing what information is to be included on the abbreviated BC or to send a blank copy of an abbreviated BC she sent me a blank copy which included a place for a certificate number. She clarified that

      ” I have attached a blank, voided copy of the form for a Hawaii birth certificate which includes what information may be included, however not all information on the certificate is required. For example, if a child does not have an identified father, there would be no father’s name, race, or state/country of birth.”

      3. Have you read anything on this blog? I’ve shown from posted birth certificates that Kapiolani delivered their BC’s on Fridays – except when Friday was a National Holiday.

      We don’t have the administrative rules that were in effect in 1961 but the statute in effect referred to the local registrars collecting certificates and then delivering them according to the procedures prescribed by the Board of Health. When the territorial statutes and rules switched to state statutes and rules nearly everything was kept the same as under the territory. The earliest DOH Administrative Rules under statehood said that local registrars were required to collect certificates for a week and then deliver them to the state registrar. That fit in well with the requirement that all births be reported within a week.

      Hawaii doesn’t have to answer questions so it was pointless to even ask them when Kapiolani delivered their BC’s to the state registrar. They only have to provide records, and none of their records would have the policies for Kapiolani Hospital.

      4. Certificate numbers were not given in strict order of birth. Whatever BC’s the state registrar received in a given day were numbered that day, so the order depended on when the BC was received at the state registrar’s office – the “date filed”. That’s why the date of birth makes no difference to this equation – except that the earlier births may have been farther down in the pile and were thus given later numbers. So WITHIN A SINGLE DAY’S PILE, the numbers may have been in reverse order from the order the births actually happened. But the next day’s numbers would start off where the day before had left off. So 2 BC’s that were both filed on Day 1 may be out of order chronologically, but a BC filed on Day 1 would always have an earlier number than a BC filed on Day 4. And that is where Obama’s “date filed” screws everything up. His was filed on Day 1, Nordykes on Day 4, but his had a later number than theirs.

      5. Fukino never said that the records she saw CONFIRMED a Hawaii birth. She said that out of the multiple birth records they have for Obama there is one that verifies (which legally means swears to) a Hawaii birth. Her use of the plural “records” fits the confirmation that Obama’s birth certificate is amended, and Hawaii statute says that the probative value of an amended BC can only be decided when it is presented to a judicial or administrative body AS EVIDENCE. There is no procedure whereby Obama would present his BC to the HDOH as evidence, and Obama has refused to present his BC as evidence in court. Without a decision by a judge, Fukino cannot legally say whether the claims on Obama’s multiple birth records are true or not. So Fukino never said where Obama was born. She said that there is a claim of a Hawaii birth. It was actually illegal for her to say even that much, but she certainly can’t say anything about the true facts of Obama’s birth because for an amended BC those can only be decided in court in this instance (since there is no procedure for a president to present his/her BC as evidence to anybody except a court, and Obama refused to present his BC as evidence to any administrative body when he was a candidate and could have done so).

      I believe everything I have said on this blog to be true. I have documented that it is true.

    • HistorianDude
      Posted May 16, 2010 at 11:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

      In other words Shirley, Butter’s just making stuff up as she goes. Those were really good questions, by the way. Her need to create massive paragraphs in the attempt to avoid direct answers to them tell you everything you need to know.

      • ksdb
        Posted May 18, 2010 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

        HD, are you making a joke or can you really not read??

  7. thinkwell
    Posted May 15, 2010 at 9:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Oh, and another topic I’ve been meaning to touch upon: any chance of making up some sort of crib sheet with urls to all the various important sites in Hawaii and contact information for the various criminal, er ah, I mean government officials? Links to the laws and a gross summary of the content and applicability of the sections would be helpful too. Maybe the list could be titled something like “Vexatious Requesting for Dummies.”

    I think this would make a very good article for The Post & Email, maybe even becoming a “sticky” link.

    Regards – tw

    • Posted May 16, 2010 at 4:54 am | Permalink | Reply

      That might be doable. Maybe you could ask John about it and see what he thinks.

  8. Shirley Beller
    Posted May 15, 2010 at 9:48 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Just one more thing. Can you identify the baby that was born on August 4th, then died no August 5th. You must have a copy of the newspaper announcement that you reference, correct?

    • Posted May 16, 2010 at 5:01 am | Permalink | Reply

      I have a copy of the announcement but do not think it wise to give the name at this point because it could hinder further investigation I’m involved in. But yes, there was a child born on August 4th who died on August 5th. I believe the child was born in a hospital because I believe that the death announcements came from the hospitals. I believe that because the infants who died didn’t usually have names in the death announcements. This baby was given a name before death.

      • MissTickly
        Posted May 16, 2010 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

        First, interesting article. I will have to dig up the response Leo got a way back then and reread.

        Also, you may have seen this already: http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/43081/

        You must be hitting the nail on the head because this hilarious article is very specifically trying to ‘head off’ exactly the claims you are making concerning the certificate numbers….however, the author is unsuccessful and it really comes off as strange.

        Anyway, impressive sleuthing, Nellie. Please hang on to those details until you have it all ironed out as best you can! ‘They’ will jump on anything.

        Thank you as always for your awesome dedication!

      • Posted May 16, 2010 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

        I could/should post the complete exchange here also. The image I’ve got isn’t very good though. I’m afraid another bit of file-saving might diminish it beyond readability. I could try.

        I get so frustrated reading the inaccurate articles. So much inaccuracy, so little time. And often they censor out comments that would clarify. I think the truth has to get out by word-of-mouth because the media is actually complicit in the deception. Hopefully I can publicly document that soon. I already know it to be the case and have the documentation but I’m waiting for a couple key pieces of documentation which would reveal the corroboration between various supposedly-trustworthy sources (including the dear old HDOH).

        They’re breaking the law in order to stall. It’s like they are the offensive line. They consider it their only job to keep us from sacking the (illegal) quarterback before he can inflict irreparable harm to the nation. He’s moving as fast as he can, and the courts, media, bureaucracy, and law enforcement are holding back the real Americans to let him do the most damage possible. Very frustrating.

        If we can’t take back the rule of law we’re sunk.

        My nephew graduates today so I’ll have to leave the work of correcting the propaganda to everybody else for today anyway. Give ’em heck, MT! =)

        I’ve said it before but I just have to say it again. I was resigned to the thought that since Obama was in office there was nothing anybody could do – and nobody willing to do it even if there was something we could do. Your work opened a whole new world for me – a world where persistence and the ability to find a lone honest player in the bureaucracy can crack holes in the corrupt system, through which daylight streams and people can let the truth be known. As I pursued that and found how blatantly corrupt EVERYBODY in Hawaii government and law enforcement seems to be, I realized that we are really and truly engaged in an internal war for the rule of law.

        Whatever happens with Obama himself, we can NOT afford to lose the war for the rule of law. I think the public has seen enough of the mafia presidency to realize that there is no security when the leaders can do whatever they dang well please to whoever they dang well please and the only people who have “standing” to do anything about it refuse.

      • MissTickly
        Posted May 16, 2010 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

        I don’t bother correcting the false or misleading stuff anymore either, but take a minute to read this article when you can.

        It’s all too coincidental. The headline claims that Ms. Nordyke somehow contradicts ‘birthers’ based on her hospital recollection, but actually she does no such thing.

        THEN, this author tries to authenticate the newspaper announcements by claiming Ms. Nordyke somehow remembers BHO’s announcement and that it appeared before her daughters’.

        How bizarre is that claim? Why would this 82 year old woman who didn’t know the dunhams or obamas at the time, remember BHO’s announcement and when it appeared???

        It really seems like they intentionally misquoted Mrs. Nordyke and distorted her interview, trying to capitalize on the fact she is an 82 year old woman and perhaps less likely to read the article on the internet or raise a fuss about being misquoted…

        The author’s motive? To give credibility to these birth announcements.

        Anyway, it’s worth a read, IMO.

        Enjoy your nephew’s graduation!

      • Posted May 17, 2010 at 1:17 am | Permalink

        I think I might have actually seen that one. Somebody at FR posted on it. And they don’t allow comments. Par for the course.

  9. charlene
    Posted May 16, 2010 at 1:06 am | Permalink | Reply

    Wow! That makes sense! I also remeber someone a few yrs ago saying there had been a Barack H Obama born in Chicago then, the person pointed to an Obit from Chicago.
    Nother thing always has bugged me,,, a friend of Barrack Sr from Kenya pointed out that SR used two r’s in his name asking the question why would bo only use one R??????
    Tooooooooooooo many crazy mysteries!

  10. charlene
    Posted May 16, 2010 at 1:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Can someone direct me to story re: birth announcements being fake?
    I never saw any reason for them NOT to be fake, but would love to see explanation! THX!

    • Posted May 16, 2010 at 6:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It’s still coming. Getting anything out of the HDOH is like pulling teeth. I’ve got requests that are almost 5 months old that the HDOH is still hemming and hawing over. Anything to delay us further until Obama’s damage to the country is irreparable. That’s why they require index data requests to be done via snail mail. They can stretch out to 20 days and beyond what would take about 2 minutes to get done via e-mail. And if you don’t get a certified mail receipt they can ignore snail mail requests altogether.

      So anyway, it’s coming. It’s just the HDOH lawlessness holding us up again…. (sigh)

  11. Shirley Beller
    Posted May 16, 2010 at 2:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

    “When I asked Okubo for documents describing what information is to be included on the abbreviated BC or to send a blank copy of an abbreviated BC she sent me a blank copy which included a place for a certificate number.”

    So no, the HDOH does not send out birth certificates with ID numbers and vitial information on them to anyone who asks, as you allege. (Don’t you think that would aid in identity theft? I sure would. Why do you think that would be legal?) They will send a blank copy. That’s very different.

    “Hawaii doesn’t have to answer questions so it was pointless to even ask them when Kapiolani delivered their BC’s to the state registrar.”

    They seem to have answered many of your questions. You state with assurance that they delivered their certificates on Friday, but you simply are unable to back that up.

    “Fukino never said that the records she saw CONFIRMED a Hawaii birth.”

    Now that’s a silly statement. She most certainly did.

    Her use of the plural “records” fits the confirmation that Obama’s birth certificate is amended.”

    That’s an even sillier statement. No, it certainly does not.

    You don’t seem to have much evidence here of a forgery, or of any wrongdoing of all by President Obama. It’s speculative choplogic.
    Yet you continue to post these claims on Free Republic as if they were the honest truth, which I’m afraid they are not.

    • Posted May 16, 2010 at 6:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The COLB that Okubo sent included the certificate number heading. The only information from that form that she said wasn’t required was the info about the father. So how do you get that communication as saying that they don’t give the certificate number?

      If you’ve read the rest of this blog you know that into the 1990’s the certificate number was actually REQUIRED to be in the public index data. The way they guard against identity theft is by not sending a CERTIFIED copy. Okubo at one point tried to say that Obama HAD to redact the certificate number because that number would allow hackers to break their system. Then Factcheck said the number really doesn’t make any difference so they showed it. Conflicting stories there…

      The HDOH doesn’t answer questions. I have gotten the information I have because I made records requests. See, the HDOH answers questions by the Honolulu Advertiser, Lori Starfelt, etc (always the pro-Obama folks) but if I ask questions they say, “The law does not require agencies to answer questions”. Different standards for the Obots than for regular folks. Just like the vital stats guy looking on the web to see if a requestor was an Obot or not – and upon finding the person against Obama he counseled the HDOH to LIE and say that there were no responsive records (even though there were).

      This is the kind of stuff that makes me say that this is about the rule of law. Is that bias and lawlessness acceptable to you?

      Regarding the rest of your post, you can say I’m silly until you’re blue in the face, but the facts speak for themselves. That’s all I’m interested in. I’ve offered documented facts; you say I’m silly. We’ll let thinking minds decide which answers are more credible.

    • MissTickly
      Posted May 17, 2010 at 12:23 am | Permalink | Reply


      Don’t act like you didn’t read this. You did:

      “..The DOH Administrative Rules (“Public Health Regulations”, Chapter 8b, 2.5(B)(2), found on page 20 at http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf , says (under the heading “Eligibility for Copies of Birth Certificates… Abbreviated Copies”),

      “A non-certified copy containing only such information as is listed in accordance with Section 2.2 may be issued to any person or organization requesting it.”

      So….unless BHO is illegitimate &/or his character/reputation could be damaged, Nellie’s request for a non-certified copy should be honored according to the DOH’s own administrative rules. AND in addition to this rule, the UIPA authorizes the disclosure of ANY record that can be made public.

      Obviously, BHO’s parents authorized the release of their current address a way back when IF those announcements are authentic. All the info on a noncertified copy SHOULD match what’s been posted online by BHO, IF the COLB jpg is an authentic representation.

      Why not just release a noncertified version if the rules allow it? That would have been easier than creating legislation that compromises the integrity of a open records law which provides for government oversight, by the people.

      I say forget the long form, I just want to see a non-certified version of the short form issued by the DOH.

      • Posted May 17, 2010 at 1:20 am | Permalink

        A genuine COLB would tell us everything we need to know. That’s why he won’t produce it even though he has it; why he posted a forgery instead.

        The note of the amendment to the medical portion and the 2006 certificate number would reveal all: that Obama was not in Hawaii to be examined by a Hawaii doctor who would complete the BC for him in 1961. He was somewhere else.

      • MissTickly
        Posted May 17, 2010 at 1:55 am | Permalink

        Still…their resistance to give you a noncertified abstract version has piqued my interest.

      • Posted May 17, 2010 at 2:06 am | Permalink

        Their resistance on this as well as their hiding the Administrative Rules for so long are probably the most transparent things the Hawaii government has ever done. lol.

        When you’re able to piece together the puzzle it all makes sense, all falls into place.

        It also explains why nobody at the OIP will say what words mean until they know which document the words are in reference to. They’re making this doo-doo up as they go along. EVERYTHING depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Slimy critters.

  12. HistorianDude
    Posted May 16, 2010 at 11:29 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Summarizing the exchange, the attorney said that “if any” doesn’t have to be used in a Glomar response .

    Told you so.

    • Posted May 17, 2010 at 1:16 am | Permalink | Reply

      And her further comments showed that the words that they use don’t indicate whether it is a Glomar response either.

      So how do we know if it’s a Glomar response? I guess we have to ask the OIP and waste time with them telling us why they don’t have to tell us.

      IOW, they don’t have to tell us a darn thing. Period. How does that make you feel, HistorianDude?

      OR we can know it’s not a Glomar response because once they were able to destroy the records in question because th 2-year retention period was over, they had no problem with saying outright that the record doesn’t exist – which is NOT a Glomar response. If a Glomar response wasn’t called for when a “no records exist” answer was given, then a Glomar response wasn’t called for when a “the records are denied” answer was given either.

      So what we have is an obviously non-Glomarized response given when the answer is “no” and a bunch of BS when the answer is “yes”. And we have a HDOH and OIP who refuse to say what words mean.


      • MissTickly
        Posted May 17, 2010 at 1:53 am | Permalink

        Hilarious. You have some faithful obot readers hanging on your every word.

        It’s not like you post articles that often, obviously they make time regularly to check in…how cute.

  13. Larry
    Posted May 22, 2010 at 2:14 am | Permalink | Reply

    Dear Butterdezillion,

    I am very grateful for your amazing tenacity AND logistic ability in deciphering the Hawaiian records and the lies around them. I must say also that I am very grateful to MissTickly for her continued help both in ability and her strength in cutting off the BS from obots. There are others here who also contribute valuable comments and work, too.

    I mentioned to a friend today, based on Dr Polland’s research on the COLB*, that the dam is breaking. (* http://www.youtube.com/TheDrRJP)

    Your work and your blog are also causing the dam to break. It has to be piece by piece, but you and others are doing it. No flood yet, but it feels like it’s coming in the not-too-distant future.

    Thank you again.

    • Posted May 22, 2010 at 2:35 am | Permalink | Reply

      You’re welcome. There are a lot of people working behind the scenes in various ways; every one of us is needed – including those who are spreading the word. I’m hoping the dam will break soon. Together I think we can make it happen.

      If anybody reading this lives near Sacramento, or knows anybody who is committed to this issue who lives near Sacramento and might be willing to do a small piece of footwork for me, please post a message. I’ll keep that message private but use it to contact you via e-mail and see if we can arrange something. Or if somebody lives near Washington, DC.

      This might sound crazy, but my computer refuses to let me install whatever program it is that is needed to be able to view Youtube footage. My husband has done everything he can think of to try to get it to work, and nothing works. I need to look on somebody else’s computer I guess.

      • Larry
        Posted May 22, 2010 at 3:02 am | Permalink

        Dear Butterdezillion,

        I wish I were near either place.

        Dr. Polland’s research videos have received high praise from Citizen Wells and Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records, each of whom devoted a post to his work. Sharon Rondeau today mentioned that she has asked him to compose something about his work for The Post and E-mail.

        I would recommend that you see the videos at the youtube link when you can. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were something helpful to your work in them.

        Deepest regards.

      • Posted May 22, 2010 at 3:24 am | Permalink

        I’m sure there’s much that would be helpful. I’ll have to ask my husband if I can watch on his computer. He knows what can happen when a person visits the sites I visit, so he likes me to stay away from his computer.

  14. Mrs. P
    Posted May 23, 2010 at 2:59 am | Permalink | Reply

    I am an OB nurse and I was wondering if you have searched for some information in a certain place but I would l really like to give it to you in an e-mail not in a public area. Could you send me your e-mail. I know that your research is very good, but I would love to help you any way that I could.

    • Posted May 23, 2010 at 3:26 am | Permalink | Reply

      If you post something it gets sent to me automatically so I can view it before approving it for public posting. So if you (or anybody) post something that you want to be just for me, just mention that it’s not for public posting and I won’t approve it so it will stay private between you and me.

      I can use all the help I can get, Mrs. P, so any ideas you have are most welcome. =)

  15. yo
    Posted May 24, 2010 at 2:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

    We all knew it was going to come to this didn’t we? We can be outraged, but there’s no reason to be surprised. When push comes to shove, the state of Hawaii has “accidentally” destroyed the records. It’s all following the script.

    As for shirley and the historian dude, what do you make of them? I mean hiding and destroying records is something they seem to have no problem with. It obviously means they’re also man made global warming true believers and the ipcc report being proved to be nothing but a pile of lies doesn’t disuade them of that crock either. I mean really….. obambi pays huge bucks to hide his birth records, the state of hawaii illegally destroys them, and these two numbnuts show up here defending it. Incredible.

    • Posted May 24, 2010 at 2:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

      This is just the original index, so (hopefully) they haven’t destroyed the actual BC – or at least not yet. But if records can be destroyed at will, and requests can be ignored at will, and laws ignored at will… seems to me that government bureaucrats have a signed blank check to do whatever they want. We have nothing to protect us from corrupt critters in high (or low, or anywhere in between) places.

      And that’s what this is really all about, IMHO.

      The fact that people defend this (or, in the case of “conservative” talkers, say it doesn’t matter) really makes me wonder how long this nation can survive.

  16. Jeff
    Posted May 27, 2010 at 8:51 pm | Permalink | Reply


    Obsess much?

  17. Larry
    Posted June 3, 2010 at 4:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Dear BDZ,

    You said above: “Knowing now that the newspaper birth announcements were faked, I know of nothing that shows there was any HDOH birth record for Obama back in 1961…”

    and in the comments that your own work on the fake announcements was forthcoming.

    You may already know of this post, but there is substantial, new research (from microfilms) with photos by ladysforest showing big problems with the HI newspaper birth announcements at


    Also, empirical proof of the growing strength of the eligibility movement came last week when WND published a national poll showing 55% want 0 to release his hidden records, and 59% said that if ineligible, he should be removed from office:


    Please keep up your excellent work. It is making a difference.

    • Posted June 3, 2010 at 5:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Thank you. I really hope it’s making a difference.

      Ladysforest and I have been working together on this research. There is much more coming, and the implications – though obvious to all of us who have worked with the people involved – should be staggering to those who have told us we should just trust the integrity of government and the media.

  18. tdr
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 4:07 am | Permalink | Reply

    butter, i read through all your postings but i think i must have missed one where you discussed MT OIP requests and responses. what did MT find relative to an amended BC? i remember her saying she received a response that denied information relative to a request regarding a date. is this your understanding?

    • Posted June 12, 2010 at 1:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

      MT, correct me if I get this mixed up. I can’t remember exactly what the request was, but the e-mail letter of response was a clear denial of access so that seemed like it confirmed that the date had been amended. Since the OIP Manual is clear that a denial of access can only be given when the document exists, that language seemed final.

      But then some of us noticed that the HDOH was sending e-mail letters that said one thing, with an attached Notice to Requestor which said something else. It was just another way for the HDOH to answer without answering, to do the motions without communicating anything.

      Turns out they had done the same thing with that request. The letter was a denial of access but the attached Notice to Requestor gave in their reasons for denial a note about not being able to do a “verification”. So that muddied everything. Was that supposed to be a Glomarized response, or not?

      MT, did you ask the OIP for help in interpreting that one? I know that if you asked, they never gave a clear answer because we never did know what that response meant. And I know that it sapped all your energy for a while, knowing that we could make requests and even if we finally waited and pushed long enough to get an answer it could still be such utter BS that we could never tell what it meant.

      The responses by the OIP make it clear to me that the OIP and HDOH have one goal: to make sure that nobody can understand any answers given so that we can’t make any conclusions or so there’s always some loophole they can use to say that what they said doesn’t mean what it says. Fudgeable answers. That’s all they’re willing to give out any more. It’s like it’s a great national secret whether they can or can’s disclose certain information. They can’t even disclose whether they can disclose information. And the OIP refuses to decide what UIPA means in relation to other statutes, even though that’s expressly why they exist. They give that job to the HDOH – to decide what the HDOH will or won’t disclose.

      I suppose now that UIPA has been revised it allows the HDOH to decide when they can stop answering a person’s requests. It doesn’t say that the OIP can refuse to address appeals when the HDOH decides to stop responding or responds incorrectly. But the OIP has one business day left to respond to me on whether the HDOH must disclose a copy of a current birth index page. There is no reason whatsoever to deny that page. I’ve explained to the OIP why I need the page and not just index data for a single person that you request by snail mail (certified mail, or they will ignore the request altogether, I’ve found. A request for some of the index data that would be on the page I’m requesting was sent in months ago by somebody else, snail-mail; they’ve never heard anything back from the HDOH. Snakes.)

      It’s lawlessness, clear and simple. The HDOH’s last response regarding my request for a copy of a birth index page said I could sue them in court if I didn’t like their answer. No mention of the OIP. They are daring us to sue – because they know that Hawaii is so corrupt that no judge will do what’s right, even on something as basic as whether the HDOH needs to get out the book that anybody in Hawaii can go look at, and copy a page for me as required by UIPA.

      We had somebody in Hawaii who did some checking for us and the HDOH refused to let him make a copy of a page from the book he was checking – even though OIP Opinion Letters say that the right to inspect includes the right to copy. So basically what the HDOH did there was a refusal to allow the public to inspect/copy a page from a public book! Why? Because without a copy, a blogger has no PROOF that they saw what they say they saw. Once a blogger makes a claim based on what they saw, the HDOH can go sanitize the record and call the blogger a liar. Total, total lawlessness.

      Sorry for the rant. Thanks for asking about this. I’m always afraid of posting too much minutiae for fear that it’ll take away from the larger points. I gave the example of Leo’s request in order to show how the HDOH and OIP corruption I talk about pans out in real requests. I could give a dozen similar examples – one of them being MT’s request.

  19. tdr
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 4:28 am | Permalink | Reply

    BTW, i know we are eyes wide open relative to the level of corruption. IMHO it always existed and at times worse than it is now. the difference is now we know!

    I am intrigued that both you and ladysforest are working together. you are both great researchers and along with MT have really advanced the real circumstances of the birth of the messiah.

    just curious as to whether you have an opinion on the lucas smith bc and his latest statements. he has released some interesting evidence relative to recording births in kenya at that time. interesting that all these tidbits of information would mean so much now.

    • Posted June 12, 2010 at 1:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Ladysforest is a very dedicated, thorough, no-nonsense person who does great research. I’m so honored to be included in her work. And I can’t say enough good things about MT and her patient, persistent diligence which started all this. Again, I’m honored to be able to work with her.

      One of the bad parts about working so intensely on researching a particular area is that I have to stay pretty focused on that area. I’ve looked at some of Smith’s work but haven’t taken the time to delve into it deeply. The same is true for the work of Dr. Ron Polland. I’m pretty sure that’s true for them too, and I’m actually glad that they’ve stayed focused on their own battle-front. What we really need is somebody who can take the bits and pieces that we’ve each learned and put it into a criminal lawsuit or into a Quo Warranto lawsuit.

      Before I dug into my research with the HDOH I did look into the Kenyan BC’s – moreso the government one than Smith’s hospital one. I found, IIRC, a UN document about a push to increase birth registrations in Kenya at that time. I know that it said that births to foreigners have always been documented better in Kenya than births to natives. Is that part of what Smith is bringing up now? I do want to get better-informed about Smith’s and Polland’s latest developments.

      Looking at the newspapers has raised some questions about some of the sources of information who have weighed in on the Smith BC – particularly World Net Daily. WND seems to accept in their articles that the birth announcements came from the HDOH, but if their researcher sent them any copies of those newspapers they would have known immediately that the story didn’t ring true. Maybe they trusted an investigator who was less than thorough, or worse. I have questions about the work of Jorge Baro also. There’s just odd stuff that doesn’t line up. I haven’t taken the time to delve deeper, since I’m concentrating on my own stuff, so the reservations linger in my mind and I just have to wait and see what develops.

  20. tdr
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 5:05 am | Permalink | Reply


    you say:

    ” From their response it seems the HDOH is refusing to accept the premise that the online COLB’s are disclosures by them. ”

    Well this has been the achilles heel the whole time but go try to explain it to anyone. in this instant world we live in, everyone wants something placed on a silver platter for them to digest.

    • Posted June 12, 2010 at 1:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Sorting it all out is very complicated and most people who are just living their lives don’t have the time to dig through it all. That’s how a crook can hide in plain sight. That’s why we pay people to dig out the details – why we pay DA’s, AG’s and US attorneys. Unfortunately, at this point they are all either scared, lazy, or crooks. How’s that for a judgmental, wide-sweeping brush? lol.

      Actually, at this point I don’t even know whether their secretaries (or whoever controls all the e-mail in the country – John Brennan?) have allowed them to see the information. A friend was helping relay information to Stephen Pidgeon and we found that what we had sent via e-mail never made it to Pidgeon. We only knew that because my friend was able to see Pidgeon in person and was told that by Pidgeon. So communications are being interfered with at every level also.

      Another indication of where we’re at as a nation. The boa squeezes ever tighter and tighter while we wait for the bulk of the public to wake up and realize the danger they’re in.

  21. tdr
    Posted June 12, 2010 at 6:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

    i believe two things have occurred; the bc was amended and the colb was forged. these were done for completely different reasons. are you with me or am i totally off base?

    • Posted June 13, 2010 at 2:59 am | Permalink | Reply

      Those 2 things were done. I think the amendment was to complete the BC so Obama would have some kind of record he could use when democrats pressed McCain for his documentation and then Obama would triumphantly produce his.

      What he wasn’t counting on was the note of the amendment having to be on the COLB – or the certificate number including a 2006 number, since that was when the BC was completed. So then he had to make a forgery since he didn’t dare let anybody see the real thing. At the same time he got the HDOH on board with saying they have a birth certificate for him – although what they have doesn’t count as prima facie evidence and they can’t ever say that Obama was born in Hawaii. When Fukino made her statement she only said that the vital records (plural) “verify” (swear) that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  22. NJ_Tom
    Posted August 17, 2010 at 7:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I can’t find the words to express how impressively detailed & thorough your investigation has been. Particularly ingenious was your statistical analysis of how frequently birth announcements in the 2 paper agreed.
    My question is – is there any thought to trying to get actual, paper copies of the issues in question? It’s not unheard of for people to keep the physical copy of a paper in which news regarding some family member appears. I’m thinking beyond those with birth, marriage or death announcements – what about someone mentioned in a news item, such as car accident, testimonial dinner, etc.? Or, perhaps just a ad offering a reward for original issues on the days in question?
    You’ve been so thorough that I doubt that you haven’t already thought of this, but thought I’d bring it up anyway.
    Again, kudos for a magnificent piece of work. With your help, we’ll get the SOB yet!

    • Posted August 19, 2010 at 8:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I think you must be referring to Ladysforest’s work on the announcements, which was excellent. I have an analysis of that too but it’s not been posted yet. There’s a big post that will be coming with a lot more on that but we’ve got a few items to solidify first, and even the smallest detail takes months to nail down when you’re dealing with Hawaii. Hopefully soon.

      One of the difficulties in putting out a reward for something general is that most people in Hawaii don’t want to rock the boat. Even people who are very committed to the cause and live far from Hawaii are afraid of retaliation from this government.

      As I deal with knowing that my e-mails are being read, sometimes stolen before I can read them (before my very eyes), sometimes not delivered to the one I send them to and sometimes not delivered from other people, and as my virus protection is disabled by somebody with enough power to access my computer remotely… I can understand the fear.

      The totalitarianism that people suspect is happening is already daily life for me. It would be so easy if I could send an e-mail and know it wasn’t going to be intercepted, read by the people who then know what information to hide, and not even delivered to the person I needed to see it. But that’s not the world I live in.

      Another reason why this is about the rule of law. It’s about America being America, not Iran.

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: