Clearest Confirmation of Amendment

Direct Confirmation that Amendment Records Exist

 

This is the clearest statement the HDOH has given. When asked which of the records from Obama amending his birth certificate they had specifically denied access to, they said they had denied access to everything requested – all 4 items. They can only deny access to records that actually exist. Therefore all 4 requested records existed at the time the HDOH denied access. The relevant portions are highlighted.

From: “Janice.S.Okubo@hawaii.gov” <Janice.S.Okubo@hawaii.gov>
To: (redacted)
Cc: Cathy.L.Takase@hawaii.gov
Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 10:22:14 PM
Subject: RE: Request per OIP Admin rule §2-71-14(b)(1)


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]

Janice Okubo

Hawaii State Department of Health

(redacted)

03/18/2010 06:01 PM

To

Janice.S.Okubo@hawaii.gov, oip@hawaii.gov

cc

 

Subject

RE: Request per OIP Admin rule §2-71-14(b)(1)

   

Dear Ms. Okubo and Ms. Takase:

Aloha. I have not received an answer to the request below from either of you so I am sending a gentle reminder. Please specify the records to which I was denied access per my message from 3/8/10.

Thank you for your time,
(redacted)

—– Forwarded Message —-
From:
(redacted)
To:
Janice.S.Okubo@hawaii.gov; oip@hawaii.gov
Sent:
Mon, March 8, 2010 12:04:38 PM
Subject:
RE:

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!
(redacted)

Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. Bill Keller
    Posted March 26, 2011 at 8:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

    If this is what constitutes incontrovertible proof in your book, Nellie, it is no wonder you can’t find a sane individual to take you seriously.

    • Posted March 26, 2011 at 8:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Nothing the HDOH says is “incontrovertible proof”, because they have documentably lied. What I have said is that there enough contradictions that an investigation is warranted. The only way we’re ever gonna know exactly what is true and what is just more lies is by getting at the actual paper and embedded records that tell us when the records were created, accessed, and altered.

      That’s all I’ve been saying, and it’s not just because of this piece of evidence but also because of other things they’ve said, that Gov Abercrombie has said, that the OIP has said, that the OIP Booklet has said, that OIP Opinions have said, etc… as well as what these sources have refused to say, the documents that have been documentably altered, and the pattern of complete lawlessness seen in all the government agencies.

      The fact that the media was threatened over this issue and that a judge passed off a “decision” he received from somebody else as if it was his own without a peep also says there is illegal bribery involved with the media and judiciary over this issue. That also says something.

      If you haven’t read this entire site then you have no idea of the reams of sources that back up what I’ve said here, nor would you have any idea why just the study of this eligibility issue has taken me literally thousands of hours thus far. You want to make a snap judgment as if that’s all it takes. You mentioned index data; I pointed out that Obama’s name was not in the 1960-64 birth index in March of 2010. Nobody has addressed why – if Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital as everybody claims – Gov Abercrombie’s “investigation” ended up going to the hospitals and State Archives to find any records, when there was supposed to be a long-form stored at the HDOH office which he could easily access.

      What is here is what we were able to get documentably lying, deceiving, law-breaking bureaucrats to come out and say – the only thing they were forced to answer. But it is not, by any means, the only evidence that exists to say that Obama lacks a legally-valid birth certificate from Hawaii.

      Another thing we were able to get them to say was that the certificate numbers for Oahu births have always been given by their office on the “date filed”. That took massive amounts of time and work to get them to finally clarify – and that shows us that Obama’s “date filed” and certificate number (as shown on the Factcheck COLB) are incompatible, given what is on the Nordyke twins’ long-forms (which have been made public). It’s been worse than pulling teeth to get them to say ANYTHING, but everything they have been forced to give LEGAL answers to actually confirms that Factcheck is a forgery and they have known it all along. 100% of their LEGAL answers. And their public statements are consistent with everything their legal answers have said, if it is recognized that Fukino never claimed there was a LEGALLY-VALID vital record for Obama.

      Once they make a public statement all the records they based that statement on are supposed to be public records. But just like EVERYTHING they have done, the HDOH is breaking disclosure and Administrative rules and laws. That is transparently obvious to anybody who has actually read the legal documents, as I have. Have you? If you haven’t, then you need to get busy before you presume to say anything about the amount or kind of evidence I do or don’t have.

  2. Tallison Rausch
    Posted May 28, 2012 at 1:33 am | Permalink | Reply

    Oh, please, the HDOH didn’t indirectly confirm anything here. By directly refusing to release anything to you, they’re neither confirming nor denying the existence or non-existence of any documentation, much less the nature of it. Only disingenuous wordplay would lead anyone to such a conclusion.

    • Posted May 28, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It was Cathy Takase, the Director of the OIP, who pointed out to me what a Glomarized response is. A Glomarized response is one where they neither deny nor confirm the existence of a record, and it can only be used when the EXISTENCE of a record is expressly confidential. The existence of receipts, etc is not protected from disclosure. The same OIP that explained Glomarized responses to me also said that the (NON-GLOMARIZED) responses Terri K received were correct responses.

      If you’re claiming that these were actually Glomarized responses, then show me what words lead you to believe that.

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: