Posted on 09/08/2010 7:21:00 PM PDT by butterdezillion
Nancy Pelosi signed one certificate of nomination which was sent to 49 states and another - saying that Obama is Constitutionally eligible - to Hawaii. People have asked why she didn't send the eligibility-certifying one to all the states, but the more pressing question is, "Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama's eligibility?"
This is on my blog but I'll post the whole thing in the first response and the link to the blog post in the 2nd response so the links will be (hopefully) clickable.
(Now tell me the truth. Doesn’t it feel good to be 15 again? lol. I used to love doing this stuff. Too bad my memory is going down the tubes.)
Okay. We got the first part of the sentence done. Now let’s zero in on the direct object and its modifiers:
(We already did this part:“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai State Department of Health, have seen...)
(And now we’re looking at this part:) “the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. “
There are 2 phrases which describe the “original vital records”. What are the 2 phrases that modify/describe “original vital records”?
Beyond that, let’s do a study of inferences. Here’s a statement:
“I, Nellie, have personally seen a copy of “The National Enquirer” which verifies that a man with five heads gave birth to Bill Clinton 2 weeks ago.”
If this was a true statement by Nellie, what 2 facts could we infer from the statement?
In that statement, is Nellie claiming that a man with five heads gave birth to Bill Clinton 2 weeks ago?
(Now tell me the truth. Doesn’t it feel good to be 15 again? lol. I used to love doing this stuff. Too bad my memory is going down the tubes.)
Okay. We got the first part of the sentence done. Now let’s zero in on the direct object and its modifiers:
(We already did this part:“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai State Department of Health, have seen...)
(And now we’re looking at this part:) “the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. “
There are 2 phrases which describe the “original vital records”. What are the 2 phrases that modify/describe “original vital records”?
Beyond that, let’s do a study of inferences. Here’s a statement:
“I, Nellie, have personally seen a copy of “The National Enquirer” which verifies that a man with five heads gave birth to Bill Clinton 2 weeks ago.”
If this was a true statement by Nellie, what 2 facts could we infer from the statement?
In that statement, is Nellie claiming that a man with five heads gave birth to Bill Clinton 2 weeks ago?
I had to bail on Friday to prepare for a family function on Saturday. I know I owe you several responses. Give me a while to catch up on the thread and I’ll get back to you.
Tex
If the AG reviewed and approved Fukino’s statement as Okubo claims, then it is a legal determination. That’s part of the AG’s job - to make legal determinations on behalf of the state. You may disagree with his opinion and a judge may ultimately overrule it, but it is still a legal determination by the state’s top attorney.
Can you point me to someplace on your blog where you’ve provided links to evidence to support your assertions about amended BC’s?
No problem whatsoever. I’m glad you have a life. And I hope your mom is doing well also. =) No rush on responses (especially since I’ll have to be catching up on my day job also. lol)
Okubo was asking for a ruling (legal opinion) on existing law. The section of Administrative Rules that you referenced has to do with adopting a new rule, amending an existing rule, or repealing an existing rule. I don’t see where that applies to asking the AG’s office for a decision on what the law says.
Bdz- you are always so thoughtful when you ping me! Thanky!
jamese- You are incorrect. Whether you will admit it or not, his BC was apparently amended according to the legal reading of a UIPA request I made this time last year. Since then, Janice Okubo at the Department of Health and Linden Joesting, an attorney at the Office of Info. Practices (OIP), confirmed to me that my understanding of their ruling(s) is correct. I was very direct in seeking their confirmation and why, so there’s was absolutely no confusion.
Furthermore, I did make my UIPA request public, and in fact discussed it in ‘real-time’ at Donofrio’s blog while composing it and while I awaited the ruling(s). No one was really writing UIPA requests yet at that time so I was looking to Donofrio for legal guidance. I also knew ahead of time from consulting with the attorneys at the OIP that the department of health was required to inform me if the records I was requesting did not exist.
I requested from Dr. fukino at the Dept. of Health:
• A digital copy of President Obama’s own personal UIPA request to access his Birth Certificate in order to AMEND it.
• A digital copy of the invoice and receipt for that AMENDMENT.
I didn’t ask IF he amended it, I didn’t ask for any verification of facts. I simply requested these extraneous and possibly public records as if I knew for a fact that they existed.
The UIPA states that Dr. Fukino had four options to choose from in answering a UIPA request. According to you, she must have answered mine with the legally required: “There are no records responsive to your request.”
I have, in fact, received that response to several other requests I’ve made.
However, she didn’t answer with that. Instead, she told me that I could not have copies of those records because they are part of Obama’s ‘private vital records’ and therefore they are protected from disclosure per HRS 338-18.
(http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2008/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm, Vital Statistics; State Public Health Statistics Act.)
Hmmm..how can a ‘tangible interest’/vital records law possibly prevent disclosure of nothing? Obviously, it can’t.
The agency is legally required under UIPA to inform a requester if they don’t maintain the records requested. Why? SO that a person may APPEAL an agency’s decision to deny disclosure of requested records. In fact, a requester may appeal with the OIP (the agency that oversees the Hawaii open records law) and/or in court.
Think about it, the appeals process is the oversight in place so that agency heads follow the open records law, rather than deny access at whim.
In fact, I did take issue with the ruling and did not believe that such records should be considered private, so I appealed the decision with the OIP.
You cannot appeal a denial of access to ‘thin air.’ That’s why UIPA requires notification if there are no records responsive to a request. (link below) They are even required to tell you if the records exist at another state agency.
On appeal, the ruling attorney at the OIP, Linden Joesting, took the ten days to investigate the very existence of those records and decide whether they should be considered private.
She upheld Dr. Fukino’s decision to withhold copies from me. She also cited HRS 338-18 and said I didn’t have a tangible interest in the records. Evidently, the records I requested did indeed qualify as part of his vital records, in her opinion.
I still disagree with their ruling and would love to file a court appeal if I had the means. In fact, the OIP informed me that was my right. They absolutely would not tell me to go find an attorney to try to get copies of NOTHING from the court.
FACT: Obama amended his BC. It’s just a fact. I have since confirmed my understanding, as I have relayed it to you, with both the DOH and the OIP. They both say my understanding is correct.
Again, I have shared my request publicly. My deepest apologies for not being a reporter, I am only a graphic designer; and have only a bachelor’s degree in fine arts.
However, I have been successfully asking questions and getting answers for 35+ years and English is my first language, if that means anything to you.
http://hawaii.gov/oip/guidancefaqs.html
“What are the possible responses to your request?
1. Full disclosure: All requested information is disclosable.
2. Partial disclosure: The record contains both disclosable and non-disclosable information. Certain information must be segregated before copies of the record are provided.
3. No disclosure: The requested information is not disclosable.
4. Request cannot be filled: the record is not maintained by the agency that received the request;
the requester needs to clarify what information is being sought; or no such records exist.
The UIPA does not apply to the requested record.”
Let me see if I can find a copy of her statement. She responded to Leo Donofrio and TerriK (Miss Tickly) with a "no records responsive to your request" when one of them sent a UIPA request asking for some information about Obama's alleged amended BC.
Okubo knew that they were supposed to provide the 1961 birth index. She wanted the AG to say that they didn’t have to do that. That would require an additional rule or ruling about the interpretation of the existing rules and law, which is what that section talks about.
What other official procedure would an AG use in order to say that index records required to be made public would not have to be released?
Always glad to have you in the discussion. =)
That’s just it. The Post & Email didn’t ask any questions about Obama’s eligibility. They asked a) Does Fukino have a duty or the authority to make such a determination and b) what is your office’s legal definition of “nautral born citizen?”
They are avoiding answering important questions vital to this Nation and have made a poor attempt to pacify the press and weak liberal minded cohorts. They created more questions than they answered. Then Gov Lingle mentions Kapiolani Hospital as being in the HDOH press release, which wasn't in the release. Why has the press not followed up on that?
Its like the Connecticut issued Social Security Card unanswered, avoided and dropped by the press. WHY?
The HDOH failure to take the lead and make relevant information public claiming some Privacy Interest by Obama which is overwhelmed by public interest in an eligible President speaks volumes about their lack of following their own laws. They rank second only to Obama for ridiculousness in claiming a privacy interest for a national figure who put himself in this situation by claiming to be a Natural Born Citizen and writing his “autobiography”, thus making his life open to inspection and verification. Imagine preventing the means to investigate and verify the accuracy of such necessary information. Realistically their is no excuse for Obama to not release his long form, his school records, his passport records, his travel records etc. The media covered for him but they can't cover forever. I can't imagine any logical reasonable excuse for this lack of openness other than some big lie is hidden. It was cute for a few months, but now it is a crisis that must be dealt with. Integrity of the government is at stake.
The missing Obama passport records add more fuel to the fire, and if they do cough them up can anyone now believe them? Heck of a situation when there are more lies coming from this administration than truth. A corrupt government we cannot trust on any subject. UN F'N BELIEVABLE.
The Supreme Court will have to answer the NBC issue sooner or later, why not sooner while two Justices will have to recuse themselves?
The Administration is robbing the Treasury blind and the people act like Lemmings following them off the cliff.
Lots of smoke and mirrors, they can't work forever.
I suspect that rather than a large conspiracy in Hawaii to cover for Obama it is more likely that Hawaii officials are avoiding shining a light on their state’s history of providing easy documentation for illegal immigrants and receiving undeserved federal money in aid. (i.e. large-scale fraud) Immigration laws in Hawaii have long been a mess and are currently being rewritten ... again.
If citizens gain access to the books in Hawaii, it won’t be just Obama’s records that get inspected. It’s a can of worms. So what you see as a huge conspiracy to protect Obama is more likely a centralized effort to cover the state’s collective @ss.
jamese- You are incorrect. Whether you will admit it or not, his BC was apparently amended according to the legal reading of a UIPA request I made this time last year. Since then, Janice Okubo at the Department of Health and Linden Joesting, an attorney at the Office of Info. Practices (OIP), confirmed to me that my understanding of their ruling(s) is correct. I was very direct in seeking their confirmation and why, so there’s was absolutely no confusion.
Furthermore, I did make my UIPA request public, and in fact discussed it in ‘real-time’ at Donofrio’s blog while composing it and while I awaited the ruling(s). No one was really writing UIPA requests yet at that time so I was looking to Donofrio for legal guidance. I also knew ahead of time from consulting with the attorneys at the OIP that the department of health was required to inform me if the records I was requesting did not exist.
I requested from Dr. fukino at the Dept. of Health:
• A digital copy of President Obama’s own personal UIPA request to access his Birth Certificate in order to AMEND it.
• A digital copy of the invoice and receipt for that AMENDMENT.
I didn’t ask IF he amended it, I didn’t ask for any verification of facts. I simply requested these extraneous and possibly public records as if I knew for a fact that they existed.
The UIPA states that Dr. Fukino had four options to choose from in answering a UIPA request. According to you, she must have answered mine with the legally required: “There are no records responsive to your request.”
I have, in fact, received that response to several other requests I’ve made.
However, she didn’t answer with that. Instead, she told me that I could not have copies of those records because they are part of Obama’s ‘private vital records’ and therefore they are protected from disclosure per HRS 338-18.
(http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2008/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm, Vital Statistics; State Public Health Statistics Act.)
Hmmm..how can a ‘tangible interest’/vital records law possibly prevent disclosure of nothing? Obviously, it can’t.
The agency is legally required under UIPA to inform a requester if they don’t maintain the records requested. Why? SO that a person may APPEAL an agency’s decision to deny disclosure of requested records. In fact, a requester may appeal with the OIP (the agency that oversees the Hawaii open records law) and/or in court.
Think about it, the appeals process is the oversight in place so that agency heads follow the open records law, rather than deny access at whim.
In fact, I did take issue with the ruling and did not believe that such records should be considered private, so I appealed the decision with the OIP.
You cannot appeal a denial of access to ‘thin air.’ That’s why UIPA requires notification if there are no records responsive to a request. (link below) They are even required to tell you if the records exist at another state agency.
On appeal, the ruling attorney at the OIP, Linden Joesting, took the ten days to investigate the very existence of those records and decide whether they should be considered private.
She upheld Dr. Fukino’s decision to withhold copies from me. She also cited HRS 338-18 and said I didn’t have a tangible interest in the records. Evidently, the records I requested did indeed qualify as part of his vital records, in her opinion.
I still disagree with their ruling and would love to file a court appeal if I had the means. In fact, the OIP informed me that was my right. They absolutely would not tell me to go find an attorney to try to get copies of NOTHING from the court.
FACT: Obama amended his BC. It’s just a fact. I have since confirmed my understanding, as I have relayed it to you, with both the DOH and the OIP. They both say my understanding is correct.
Again, I have shared my request publicly. My deepest apologies for not being a reporter, I am only a graphic designer; and have only a bachelor’s degree in fine arts.
However, I have been successfully asking questions and getting answers for 35+ years and English is my first language, if that means anything to you.
http://hawaii.gov/oip/guidancefaqs.html
“What are the possible responses to your request?
1. Full disclosure: All requested information is disclosable.
2. Partial disclosure: The record contains both disclosable and non-disclosable information. Certain information must be segregated before copies of the record are provided.
3. No disclosure: The requested information is not disclosable.
4. Request cannot be filled: the record is not maintained by the agency that received the request;
the requester needs to clarify what information is being sought; or no such records exist.
The UIPA does not apply to the requested record.”
I was hoping that LtC. Terry Lakin’s attorneys would have been granted deposition rights with Dr. Fukino but alas, it looks like that will not happen.
As I’m sure that you are well aware Barack Obama’s birth records can be released under subpoena but unfortunately, no one has attempted that route to date.
Oh for crying out loud Jamese777, why do you think the 70 plus lawsuits were stopped before discovery? Discovery would have allowed the plaintiffs to issue subpoenas for his records. The plaintiff's attempted that route. And don't quote me your one poorly litigated case that also had no discovery, it is next to meaningless to anyone but you.
By the wai go ahead and wait for some “offical” statement, you have already exposed yourself as one who is not interested in the truth. Have you submitted any requests for information? I think YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH.
That seems to indicate you think Hawaii is hiding something about Obama, because if they weren't, opening the books for just him would show nothing wrong...
This indeed may be one reason why Hawaii is hesitant to give out birth index info. Sounds like it needs a full investigation and might make a nice chapter in my book or a story in itself. Where there is smoke there is fire.
This could of course lead to Hawaii short form BC's being disallowed for passport evidence like California and parts of Texas currently are. Playing with fire is dangerous.
As you said, you worded your original UIPA request based on the assumption that Obama has an amended birth certificate. You based that assumption on a statement by Fukino in which she referred to Obama's "vital records," plural. Further, you believe that your assumption has been confirmed based on the state's response that you have no tangible interest in the records because you claim they would have to respond that they have "no records responsive to your request" if there were, in fact, no amended records for Obama.
However, according to butterdezillion's research, the state will not reveal the legal status of a BC because it's a "protected disclosure." So they cannot tell you if Obama does or does not have an amended BC. If they responded that there were "no records ...," they would, in fact, be disclosing information about the status of Obama's BC. They'd be telling you that his bc hasn't been amended and apparently, they're not allowed to disclose even that. So the only proper response is "you have no right to see his records."
Additionally, you say that Linden Joestring upheld the ruling that you have no tangible interest in Obama's records and that the records you requested, which included a receipt, appear to be part of Obama's vital records. You know what that tells me? Anyone who ever requested a copy of their BC (and got a receipt for such) has vital records, plural.
Danae requested copies of her BC in 2000 and 2007. She has receipts for those requests. Further, her mother requested one of the copies and the state was able to tell her that. She discovered this during the Polarik fiasco. She had specifically asked for copies of receipts for records that she, personally, had requested. She didn't know/remember that her mother had requested a copy of her BC. But the state had records of all the requests made for Danae's records. So, according to Linden Joestring, those requests are part of Danae's vital records, plural.
That's the problem with speculation. People create their own facts and from there go on to speculate further. We have precious little concrete evidence about Obama's BC. We know what's in the Birth Index and that's about it.
You say it's a fact that Obama has an amended BC, but IMHO it isn't a fact. It's speculation. There is one and only one entry in the Birth Index for Obama. Yet we know he has vital records, plural, because he supposedly asked for a copy of his BC in 2007 (or 2008.)
Yes, Hawaii is hiding something about Obama. They’re required by law to do so. They can’t provide access to his records or disclose anything confidential about them without Obama’s permission.
And Obama ain’t talking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.