... Update at #460.
Posted on 09/21/2009 5:37:18 PM PDT by rxsid
Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended.
I will be assisting one of my readers in filing litigation in Hawaii state circuit court pursuant to her ongoing request for public information denied by Hawaii officials. (Readers of my blog will recognize her as MissTickly aka TerriK.)Correspondence sent to TerriK by Hawaii officials indicates that President Obama’s vital records have been amended and official records pertaining thereto are maintained by the state of Hawaii.
I will issue a full statement and press release on behalf of TerriK via this blog in the days ahead. This statement will include a complete history of correspondence between TerriK and Hawaii state officials in the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and the Department of Health (DoH).
[snip]STANDING
TerriK has standing to pursue this action under the statute. The UIPA manual states:
“Any person” may make a request for government records under part II, the Freedom of Information section of the UIPA. “Person” is defined broadly to include an individual, government agencies, partnerships and any other legal entities.
Under part II, a government agency generally may not limit access to public records based on who the requester is or the proposed use of the record.
I have not formatted it, sorry!!!
McAfee®, Inc. McAfee SiteAdvisor 1. Navigation 2. Content 3. Sidebar 4. Footer Navigation Utility Navigation * Support * About McAfee * Contact us * United States - English o o Australia - English o Brasil - Português o Canada - English o Canada - Français o China - 中国 (Simplified Chinese) o Czech - Čeština o Danmark - Dansk o Deutschland - Deutsch o España - Español o Ελλάδα - Ελληνικά (Greek) o France - Français o Italia - Italiano o Japan - 日本 (Japanese) o Korea - 한국 (Korean) o Magyarország - Magyar o México - Español o Nederland - Nederlands o Norge - Norsk o Polska - Polski o Portugal - Português o Russia - Pусский (Russian) o Slovensko - Slovenčina o Suomi - Suomi o Sverige - Svensk o Taiwan - 台灣 (Traditional Chinese) o Türkiye - Türkçe o United Kingdom - English o United States - English McAfee Secure sites help keep you safe from identity theft, credit card fraud, spyware, spam, viruses and online scams. * Home * Web Security * How It Works * Download * Resources * Webmasters freerepublic.com Green Verdict Image We tested this site and didn't find any significant problems. Are you the owner of this site? Leave a comment Contact information: Country Popularity United States Lots of users Automated Web Safety Testing Results for freerepublic.com e-mail tests for freerepublic.com: Download tests for freerepublic.com: Online affiliations for freerepublic.com: Link Graph Linked to green sites When we visited this site, we found that most of its links are to sites which are safe or have only minor safety/annoyance issues. Annoyances from freerepublic.com: Reviewer and Web site owner comments User Review Summary for freerepublic.com This site is good (6) This site spams (0) Adware, spyware, or viruses (0) Excessive popups (0) Phishing or other scams (0) Bad shopping experience (0) Browser exploit (0) freerepublic.com Web site owner comments (0) Are you the owner of this site? Add a comment User Reviews (6) page 1 of 1 Learn more about our reviewer system. Rating: This site is good Clean site. No issues. Posted at 08/11/2009-12:13:37 AM by mlog, Reviewer , View profile [ Reputation score: 1 / 9 ] Rating: This site is good Posted at 10/30/2007-05:24:58 AM by OneGyT, Reviewer , View profile [ Reputation score: 3 / 9 ] Rating: This site is good I having using this website for about 5 years now, no problems, only bad thing is the website crashes once awhile, but that is nitpicking... Posted at 10/28/2007-05:02:33 PM by pdx1974, Reviewer , View profile [ Reputation score: 1 / 9 ] Rating: This site is good Site is safe and free of all problems or annoyances. Posted at 03/09/2007-06:51:36 PM by Phantene, Reviewer , View profile [ Reputation score: 1 / 9 ] Rating: This site is good completely clean website. No problems here. Posted at 01/04/2007-06:29:29 PM by thanx2mj, Reviewer , View profile [ Reputation score: 1 / 9 ] Rating: This site is good Clean, simple site. Very ethical operator. No worries here. Posted at 06/19/2006-03:40:58 PM by Hurricane Andrew, Reviewer , View profile [ Reputation score: 1 / 9 ] page 1 of 1 User Name Remember Me? Password Not a reviewer, yet? Register and leave a review of this site. Footer * Privacy Policy * Terms of Service * McAfee Home Copyright © 2003-2009 McAfee, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This will be the rating popup - TBD
You got me there! I have no clue
... Update at #460.
"TerriK INVESTIGATION, PART 2: OIP Staff Attorney Linden Joesting’s Response to TerriK’s Appeal Appears To Confirm That The DoH Maintains Amended Vital Records For President Obama.
[snip]
OIP STAFF ATTORNEY LINDEN JOESTING ISSUED MULTIPLE CONFIRMATIONS THAT THE DoH WAS REQUIRED TO INFORM TerriK IF THEY DID NOT MAINTAIN THE RECORDS SHE REQUESTED.
[snip]
But the DoH never said that amended records didn’t exist in their files. They did, however, deny access to those records and that means the records must be in their possession.
[snip]
Part 2 of the TerriK investigation report concludes with Joestling’s official OIP response to TerriK’s appeal:
Update at #464.
So this means that OIP has denied the request as well?
Serious? But again this was dated September 17th, was this mailed to TerriK and she just received it? Has Leo responded on this?
"TerriK INVESTIGATION: The Post and Email Blog Features Important Related Story – “Is Fukino’s office in open rout?”
DOH DIRECTOR’S OFFICE SHAKEN UP BY CITIZEN’S HUNCH THAT OBAMA HAS ALTERED HIS ORIGINAL VITAL RECORDS
by John Charlton
(Sept. 30, 2009) — Recent public revelations by Attorney Leo Donofrio, that the office of Dr. Chiyome L. Fukino, the Director of the Department of Health for the State of Hawaii, has a policy of obstructing and misdirecting citizens’ requests for information, in violation of Hawaiian Statutes, seems to have led to confusion and rout in the office of the director."
I do not want to mess up what Leo and Terri K are doing but when the time is right - we need to all pile on with our requests and demands for docuements based on HI law and statutes. When the time is right - we need to flood HI with document demands.
Go Leo and Terri K.
... update at #467.
naturalborncitizen Your comment is awaiting moderation.Great Job on this. You should also know that the UIPA and case law is very clear that the response given to your reader on that form is improper…
§2-71-14 (c)(3)
(3) The request requires the agency to create a summary or compilation of information from records that is not readily retrievable.
http://www.state.hi.us/oip/rules.html#27114
But read the UIPA at….
http://www.state.hi.us/oip/uipa.html#92F11
Ҥ92F-11
(c) Unless the information is readily retrievable by the agency in the form in which it is requested, an agency shall not be required to prepare a compilation or summary of its records.”
You see that, if the information is readily retrievable then they can’t rely on that provision. This was also discussed in the Hawaii Supreme Court case
STATE OF HAWAI’I ORGANIZATION OF POLICE OFFICERS (SHOPO) v. SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS-UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I CHAPTER
83 Haw. 378; 927 P.2d 386; 1996 Haw. LEXIS 156; 154 L.R.R.M. 2373
“In a related argument, the City, relying on HRS § 92F-11(c), asserts that the circuit court committed reversible error by ordering the City to create a roster of disciplined employees. The City’s argument is patently meritless. HRS § 92F-11(c) provides that “unless the information is readily retrievable by the agency in the form in which it is requested, an agency shall not be required to prepare a compilation or summary of its records.” The circuit court’s order granting summary judgment, as modified by its June 16, 1994 order, [***51] states that “the HPD may either produce a summary of the information requested or produce all documents pertaining to the subject matter, using whichever method of disclosure the HPD deems more expedient.” (Emphases added.) Clearly, the City was not ordered to create a “roster.” Accordingly, we discern no error. ”
They used this same tactic against TerriK, but on that form they were so very devious by checking two boxes. They checked the denial box for her entire list of requests…and that would mean they had the documents but are not allowing access. And they also checked the box for the list/summary thing. That response is not a denial of access, it’s a denial that they have the means to retrieve the records requested.
Nice report. This isn’t right. I have UIPA requests pending as well. Will publish those soon.
Not only in Hawaii, but it was quite common in Obama days and probably now, when children were adopted,records were sealed. The only way they could be opened is if both natural parents agreed when the child requested to know who they were.
It had to do with parents objecting to the grown children contacting them out of the blue.
Very odd people have children.
In other words, if someone's original record is later amended (for any reason), and AFTER that, the person requests a copy...is that copy required by HI law to indicate an amended record? If so, what law/statue?
We've seen examples of both long and short form that state the original was amended. But, is that a requirement?
See here for the examples.
mmm..mmm...mmm..
Barry Soetero’s in trouble!
Thanks for the ping!
I saw a racial classification somewhere, on an official government document (Oakland CA police report? some crime report?) called "Coastal Arab" which was meant to refer to the peoples of the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Dijbouti, Somalia--perhaps also Kenya? Tanzania?).
If anyone else here has run across this term, either in a local, state or federal gov't document, please ping the parties here. I live in an area where there are a number of Ethiopian and Etritrean immigrants.
I don't know if 50 years ago someone might have entered "Arab" meaning "Coastal Arab" (term used today), and someone might have changed it to "African" if only to clarify it meant "Arabs" from Africa.
“UIPA Request #5 From Leo C. Donofrio”
This morning, it dawned on me that I wasn’t aware of any previous UIPA requests to the DoH for the actual records which contributed to the DoH declaration that President Obama’s birth had been filed by the DoH Registrar on August 8, 1961.
How could a birth have been”FILED” on “August 8, 1961″ for President Obama with the DoH “REGISTRAR” without the Registrar having been informed that he was born?
That’s not possible. Not unless clairvoyance was officially recognized by the DoH in 1961. (More secret law?)
In order for the DoH Registrar to have filed President Obama’s birth on August 8, 1961 there must be a record that came into existence no later than August 9, 1961. (I use that date to make up for any issues regarding time zone differences.)
So, I have just sent the following UIPA request to Hawaii Department of Health Director Fukino.
Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2009 8:24 AM From: [Leo C. Donofrio - email redacted] To: chiyome.fukino@doh.hawaii.gov cc: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov Subject: UIPA Request #5 From Leo C. DonofrioDear Department of Health Director Fukino,
The following request for Government records is made pursuant to the UIPA:
I request to inspect and copy the record (or records) which contributed to the decision of the Hawaii Department of Health (hereinafter DoH) to have indicated that President Obama’s birth had been filed by the DoH registrar on August 8, 1961.
President Obama has made public a “Certification of Live Birth” (COLB) which he alleges is an official document printed by the Hawaii DoH. That document bears the following:
“DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR August 8, 1961″.
Various public statements made by the DoH have given the appearance of authenticating that COLB as a genuine record originally generated by the DoH.
In this, my 5th UIPA request sent to your office, please understand that I am requesting access to all records maintained by the DoH which caused President Obama’s birth to have been filed with the registrar back on August 8, 1961. Therefore, for purposes of this – UIPA request #5 – I am only requesting to inspect (and copy) records (or official copies thereof) which originally came into existence no later than August 9, 1961.
This request is not for the COLB in question as I have previously requested that record in a separate UIPA request (UIPA Request #3) forwarded to your office by myself on September 29, 2009.
Please have your response conform to the OIP administrative rules. If you do maintain a record (or records) which came into existence prior to August 10, 1961 which contributed to the DoH declaration that President Obama’s birth had been “FILED BY REGISTRAR” on “August 8, 1961″ and you intend to deny access thereto, please make sure your response states that you are denying access. If you do not maintain any such records, you are required by the OIP administrative rules to inform me that you do not maintain any such records.
I would prefer to inspect these records in person. If you intend to send me official copies of the records requested herein, I prefer electronic copies sent by email to [email redacted].
Very Truly Yours,
Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney
That a COLB has been presented to the nation by President Obama wherein his birth appears to have been filed by the DoH Registrar on August 8, 1961 could not be more public at this point.
And the DoH has given the appearance of authenticating this document. Such authentication has been relied upon by various courts and persons in the Senate and Congress. Therefore, absolutely no privacy protection is available to President Obama as to this information.
Should the requested records also contain information which has not been made public and to which a privacy interest still exists, that information can be redacted.
The law supports my request. The law is rational in that way. The strange behavior by the DoH is irrational.
If the DoH has such a record they must either grant access thereto or deny access. On the other hand, if the DoH does not maintain such a record, then – according to the OIP administrative rules, as well as the multiple statements of OIP Staff Attorney Linden Joesting – the DoH must tell me if they do not maintain such a record.
If the DoH does not maintain such a record, then they do not maintain sufficient evidence that President Obama’s birth was genuinely filed by the DoH Registrar on August 8, 1961. This would bring us back to square 1.
(For more relevant discussion about the “Filed By Registrar” issue, please see the original June 24, 2008 report by Israeli Insider as well as TerriK’s latest in depth analysis.)
Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney "
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/uipa-request-5-from-leo-c-donofrio/
. . . Update at #476.
I think at this moment is a good time to keep an eye on Obama. Check for his moods and mannerisms. He should be getting bummed out right about now. ;-)
I hope when he gets his response I hope someone will explain the meaning and import in simple laymans’ language.
I like the phrase from General Patton’s speech, regarding the enemy: “piss soaked hind legs”.
;-)
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.