Whew, had to go sit on the side of the bed for a minute and regain my composure. I got a headache I was laughing so hard. I reviewed the documents. IMHO, Poor Butter has lost her bearings in a sea of government red tape, state employee inexactitude, and bureaucratic confusion.
In my last few jobs, I had to deal with this on a fairly regular basis, and nothing I saw in her documents convinces me there is any cover up, or that there is an amended document.
She is latching onto the details of the language (trees) and missing the forest. This happens a lot.Over the years, I developed a very good approach to dealing with state employees, and I good as I was, there were still times I ended up in red tape hell.
Recently, on one matter, I sat before a state employee with a clear copy of the law and several opinions from the attorney general. I did not get my way, and had to use the system to get thru the system.
FOIA requests often turn into turf battles. It isn’t just the state. One can run into the same thing with agencies, and big businesses.
What Poor Butter did, was confuse the language “a denial is a confirmation” with actual confirmation.
Let me give you a very practical example. I want to serve legal papers on Bob Smith, who is dodging me. I am not sure where he works. So I call Flump Trucking. “Hey is Bob Smith gonna be in town this weekend? I got to bring his bar b q grill back.”
If I get either a yes he is or a no he isn’t——I know that Bob Smith works there. The denial is a confirmation of what I am trying to discover. That is because what I am trying to discover isn’t whether Bob will be in or not-—it’s whether he works there.
Now smart people, or state agencies, can be aware of this kind of snooping. Hence, the glomar response. But a state agency, if there ain’t a glomar form in the slot, are just as likely to print out a denial. The language will indicate the denial is a confirmation, but it ain’t. Someone was just too busy to grab the right form. Or, they don’t understand it in the first place.
Trust me here. I have done enough of this kind of snooping, that I know the layout. Here I get no confirming “vibes” that this was a cover-up.
parsy, who has played a few games in his time
| Trust me here. I have done enough of this kind of snooping, that I know the layout. Here I get no confirming “vibes” that this was a cover-up. parsy, who has played a few games in his time Ditto. I've dealt with scumbag, lying, sacks of sh!t like Obama on both a professional and personal level. I know EXACTLY what he's capable of. Furthermore, your "I got a headache I was laughing so hard" garbage is as obvious as the cries of "RACIST" during the 2008 election and last year's Town Hall meetings. That doesn't work anymore, does it? We are undeterred, as those who question Obama's Eligibility continues to grow and grow. We're quite on to your and other Obots' tactics, parnip:
Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals: |
Why did the OIP - who is responsible to check out whether the responses are correct - confirm that it was a proper denial of access and not just a SNAFU? Two different appeals were made (one of which I haven’t posted on the blog yet) in which the OIP attorney confirmed that the request was a PROPER DENIAL OF ACCESS. One confirmation was written by the director of the OIP, Paul Tsukiyama - shortly after he wrote the handbook on how UIPA responses are supposed to be handled.
And everybody let their answers stand even when we were all saying very loudly that their answer means Obama’s BC is amended. They could have corrected at any time - and in other instances HAVE corrected answers they gave wrongly.
No, Mr. Parsy, this was not just SNAFU. And the cover-up all along - especially regarding the Administrative Rules, which are required to be public at all times but were hidden the entire time of the campaign and until a year afterwards - only confirms that what’s been happening is deliberate.
I’ve been around the block a few times myself. When my kid has chocolate on their face and swears they didn’t steal the candy, but refuses to open their hand and let me see.... this mom knows better than to think it’s just a SNAFU. The cover-up always gives it away.
I hear you. Trust me, I have run into the same thing. And with that particular agency as well.
So I have my salt handy when dealilng with denials indicating truth stuff.
What I cannot get past however is this: If Barack Obama posted his real COLB on the internet, then he has no right to expect privacy, by Hawaiian law and statute. He has given that up by posting his information himself, having his functionaries and representatives deliberately do so.
Yet, Hawaii continues to insist that they cannot release even the most simple confirmation that the posted COLB is real, relying on State law saying they can’t.
The only way that Hawaii can be saying that in honesty if if the COLB is not real, and Hawaii knows it. Obama hasn’t released the real COLB and so Hawaii is correctly saying they cant release anything.
If the COLB were real, then they could not only release another copy of it to the press, the rest of his records would be open as well.
That’s where I hit the wall. Either the COLB is Fake and Hawaii can’t release a darned thing because Obaba’s right to privacy has not been released, OR The COLB is Real and Hawaii is breaking it’s own laws on a number of different levels.
Which is it?