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.)
First, the receipt for payment for a copy of a vital record, I was told is not maintained nor part of the vital record.
“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.”
I didn’t request his amended birth certificate. I requested his UIPA request to access his own record and there was NO precedent for that. Until I got a ruling on appeal, UIPA requests were subject to disclosure. The idea that they are now part of a vital records was invented with my request.
However, what you are referring to is called the glomar response. It goes like this: “access to records you requested, if any, is denied.” This is another response I have received several times.
They did not use the glomar response for this particular request and when I asked for confirmation I was told my request for copies was “denied in it’s entirety.”
Question my understanding all you want, that’s totally fine with me. However, I have had seven confirmations before and after the filing of my UIPA request that the DOH had to tell me if the records existed. Joesting told me herself twice, BEFORE I even filed it, long before she found herself ruling on the appeal.
At this point, I have satisfied myself and that’s the best I can do.
I meant to also add that according to UIPA, agency heads are not allowed to consider a requester’s reason for making a records request when deliberating a ruling.
In other words, Fukino could not simply reason out that I just wanted to know IF he amended his BC and sought verification by asking for copies the invoice, receipt and request to access his own records.
Fukino was required to rule as if I could have been told by Obama himself that he did request to amend and saw the process through to payment.
The HDOH is totally convoluting the definitions. Look at the definition of “public health statistics” set forth at the beginning of HRS 338 at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0001.htm . Then realize that when Miss Tickly asked Okubo what was meant by “vital records” Okubo sent back a Wikipedia definition saying that vital records are birth, marriage, and death certificates.
The certificates and attached documentation are the vital records. They are governed by HRS 338-18a. The PROCESSING records are “public health statistics records”, which are governed by 338-18b - which disallows CERTIFIED COPIES and direct viewing only.
Both Linden Joesting and the HDOH knew that the existence of processing records is not confidential. Joesting noted that the HDOH needed to say if the records did not exist. And the HDOH would have used a Glomarized response if they had been trying to claim that they have to hide even the existence of the amendment processing records. They didn’t use a Glomarized response.
Their convulation of “vital records” with “public health statistics” came after the horse had left the shed. It was AFTER Donofrio published the information about the amendment being confirmed that the HDOH started their revolving-door rationalizing of why they couldn’t do anything.
Their claim that the legal status of a record is protected from disclosure was toward the end of that revolving door. And if you think it through, that would mean that they would have to say the same thing for a piece of toilet paper with a name scratched on it that’s sitting in their “pending” file as they would say for a legally-valid BC. Now think about it. When Fukino said they have Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.... which is it - a legally-valid BC, or a piece of toilet paper sitting in a pending file?
If you take their rationale, then nothing they have said means ANYTHING, because they can’t reveal ANYTHING about whether what they have is a piece of junk or actually legally worth something.
If you believe what they say about that, then the ONLY way to know anything about what Hawaii has is by looking at the actual certificate.
And actually, that’s what HRS 338-18a says, as I understand it: that if anything is going to be revealed from a birth certificate it should be revealed through the lawful disclosure of the document itself - a document which is required to have notes of anything that affects the legal status of the certificate. Disclosures of what is on a birth certificate are not to be made without the legal status of the record being known.
Fukino is doing it all backwards; she’s saying she can reveal whatever she wants but CANNOT REVEAL the legal status. That is absolute craziness. The only reason anything on a BC even matters is if it is a legally-valid document. If it’s just a piece of garbage who cares what is on it?
When Fukino made the announcement saying they have Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures, do you really think she meant everybody to believe that she couldn’t comment on whether they have anything legally-valid for Obama? Why didn’t she say publicly what her staff told me in their responses to my UIPA requests - that the legal status of certificates is a highly-kept secret that they can’t reveal to anybody?
Regarding speculation - what other option do we have, when the HDOH has no records of their rules and their own definitions, procedures, and explanations change as often as Liz Taylor changes husbands? If a witness in court tried changing their story as often as the HDOH changes theirs and contradicts everything they or the rules say, they would be jailed for contempt of court.
I do find it interesting that you've tried to pretend less disdain for those seeking the facts on this oval office creep. You're almost convincing.
Actually... My mom requested a short form COLB in 2000. I requested one in 2007 that I don’t clearly remember, it was just days after reconstructive knee surgery and I was on a lot of pain meds. Yea. Sigh. I ordered it online, and pain meds do mess with memory. That was in 2007. During the Polarik fiasco, I asked HDOH how many had been ordered under my Mom’s name as that was the one I remembered clearly. That request was filed under HER name. Not mine. The order I placed in 2007 was under MY name. There were two different places those receipts were kept!!! So, ask how many colb’ Stanley Ann requested, for receipts Madelin Dunham ordered. They are deceased. I think you can Ask for those.