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.”
Always glad to have you in the discussion. =)
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.
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.)