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.
And there’s your other request also - the one answered by OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama.
Whoa! I just looked at Tsukiyama’s letter again and the citation he gave as the reason for them to (supposedly)rightfully deny you access to any and all birth certificates they maintain on file for Obama, as well as supporting evidence for the claims made on them.... is HRS 338-13. He used that reference twice so it wasn’t just a typo, where he intended to put 338-18.
If you look at 338-13, it says: §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]
The difference between 338-13 and 338-18 is that 338-13 refers to the provisions of 338-16 and 338-17 as well - which deal with LATE AND ALTERED BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
Wow. I didn’t catch that before. The HDOH always just cites 338-18. But Tsukiyama cited 338-13, which includes the special treatment required for late and altered birth certificates.
Where did you get the number from? I’m asking because I’ve got experience with different phone numbers and wonder which office you actually spoke with.
Interesting that she wouldn’t give her name. Did you specifically ask for her name, and if so was it at the beginning of the call or after she knew what you were asking?
I’m not doubting what you’re saying, just very curious as to which office they sent you to based on what they’ve done when I’ve called.
Right. Joesting confirmed that understanding.
I think she was pressured to reach that conclusion - since name change amendments to BC’s are not confidential according to several OIP Opinion Letters. If records of amendments were vital records themselves those OIP Opinion Letters would not have concluded what they did.
I also think she was pressured to tell me that the HDOH gets to decide what they release and what they don’t. That’s such a clear violation of UIPA’s whole reason for establishing the OIP.
Again, shenanigans that make me go Hmmmm.
That’s fascinating. I keep wondering if these aren’t little clues that the DOH gives out (intentionally) hoping someone puts it all together to bring Obama down, but to avoid any culpibility or conflict of interest.
The Arizona law would only allow that if he was stopped for another reason and there were additional reasons to suspect that there was a problem with documentation - such as a refusal to show a driver’s license or suspicious behavior.
So it sounds like the Arizona law would be a step up from what this person experiences now. Why do you think Obama’s DOJ doesn’t want to improve the situation for this friend of yours?
I googled HDoH and found it next to Okubo’s name. I was transferred so I don’t know where I ended up. I asked up front. She wouldn’t answer my questions. I said I wouldn’t quote her directly, so she atrted talking.
So far no response. Sent it Sept 3rd - 7 business days ago.
I’m glad to see you active on this forum. I had always thought your posts informative.
Good question. A COHB had to be filed a year or more after the birth. A standard birth certificate had to be filed within a year of birth. The very suggestion that a person could have both raises serious questions about what they mean when they say a “standard birth certificate”.
And I did contact Onaka’s office directly to ask for documentation on the procedures of how they convert an amendment to a COHB into a “late” birth certificate. Crickets. Neither Onaka nor the AG’s office have EVER even acknowledged that I e-mailed them. Ever.
That’s what I think several of the SCOTUS justices have done, as well as Dick Cheney and a couple of the eligibility judges.
Hard to tell, but there’s definitely enough odd stuff that people should be scratching their heads and wondering at least.
One of my favorite comments was from Spokesbabe Okubo saying (and I’m paraphrasing) that if Obama was born in Bali, then his COLB would or SHOULD list Bali as the place of birth. This indicates that it’s possible Obama could have a Hawaiian birth certificate IF born abroad ... and it was an odd choice for what appears to be a random mention of a foreign place. Bali, as we know, is in Indonesia, a country where Obama lived as child, and a country where Obama was reported in one newspaper story to have been born. What might have been intended as ridicule could actually be a Freudian type of slip that reveals pertinent and useful information. Not saying that Okubo told us Obama was definitely born in Indonesia, but that he may have been born elsewhere. Maybe he legally amended his certificate to show Hawaii as the place of birth, even though it should list the other location instead of Hawaii??
Wow. If you got through to Okubo herself - even briefly - then I owe you my congratulations. They have a secretary who answers the phone for both the Communications Department and the Vital Records Office and then she transfers the call where it’s supposed to go. She herself is friendly and helpful but doesn’t appear to know much about the details. I doubt that was who gave you the information. Might have been somebody in the Communications Dept under Okubo.
I think they’re scared. I think the office workers are scared doo-doo-less of being caught saying something Okubo doesn’t want them to say. Two different workers at their office have already revealed that the HDOH is definitely treating Obama’s records according to something besides their own protocols. At least one of them has been found out and is not so honest any more. The other they might not know about yet. She’s probably scared stiff.
I hate it that Obama is putting honest people through this crap. These people should be able to do their job according to the laws and rules and not have to worry about getting in trouble for it. I hate it that the honest people always end up shafted when crooks are in power.
Yeah, an interesting little admission that “stuff” happens and what is supposed to happen isn’t always what does happen. An admission that the documents can be wrong - which is the opposite of what she intended to say.
But you know what’s interesting, now that I think about it?
The HDOH has said they have no index of foreign births. It existed in 1981 and was required to be retained permanently - just like the original birth index from 1961 - but it, too, has disappeared from the face of the earth.
Really interesting in light of Okubo’s reference to somebody from Bali being able to have a Hawaii BC but the place of birth “should” still say Bali. I’d like to ask Okubo what birth index that BC would be under if that had happened before 1981, since they claim they don’t have an index to foreign births.
So you’re thinking that Hawaii doesn’t have caller ID and that butter could simply call Hawaii and get someone to give her information you received?? Doesn’t the law say they can ignore her now??
I dunno.
“As I said, I’m not trying to convince you to see it my way. I’m trying to understand why you see it the way you do.”
You really don’t understand why I see it the way I do?
Reasons supporting why I see it the way I do:
1) Before I sent the UIPA request, On July 27, I asked if Fukino would state that she had seen Obama’s Amended Birth Certificate was on file in accordance with policy and procedures. She answered that she had seen his original vital records were on file, but did not say that it was in accordance with policy and procedures.
2) When drafting my UIPA request, I sought guidance from the OIP: Joesting told me that the DOH should inform me that no records exist if Obama did not amend his birth certificate. Hawaii statute says ‘should’=’must.’
3) Joesting told me that twice, before I ever sent the request. I have both emails.
4.) The UIPA also says they must tell me if those records don’t exist. There are four acceptable responses on the ‘notice to requester.’ You can download it here: http://hawaii.gov/oip/2jul10%20Notice%20to%20Requester.doc
5.) Fukino ruled with another of the acceptable responses: “Is denied in its entirety” because disclosure is prohibited by law. She cited a law that protects vital records, HRS 338-18(b).
6.) On appeal, the same person that told me I would be informed if those records did not exist, Linden Joesting, was assigned to rule on my request. She upheld Fukino’s interpretation and application of HRS 338-18(b). From reading past OIP opinion letters, we know that Joesting was required to investigate the existence of the records being requested. She did not tell me the records did not exist, and, in fact, refers to them as “related documents” in her ruling cover letter here: http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/clearer-joesting-appeal-doc/
7.) I spoke with Joesting on the phone and she referred me to Legal Aid if I wanted to pursue things from there.
8.) I received confirmation that my request for copies was denied in it’s entirety, when I asked the Department of Health to list separately, the specific records to which I was being denied access. Okubo replied with “All of them.” She may have avoided giving me detail by using vague language, however I WAS SPECIFIC and clear and completely upfront and honest about what I was asking for. I provided a citation from the UIPA that required her to list the specific records that I was being denied access to. My question to her must be considered in context.
9.) Leo Donofrio, an attorney, interpreted the denial of access as a “statutory admission.”
10.) I spoke with a local attorney who agreed that it was a “statutory admission.”
Reasons supporting why I could be misinterpreting things:
1.) BuckeyeTexan takes issue that Fukino did not say “all.”
2.) BuckeyeTexan called the DOH and found that DOH procedure for amendments does not require that a UIPA request, per se, be filed.
Considering that I requested, “his formal or informal UIPA request” and because a UIPA request is simply a records request for access or disclosure; the DOH interpretation of my request is necessary to definitively say one way or another what that particular portion of my UIPA ruling means.
HOWEVER, the rest of it: copies of receipts, invoices, communication—denied in it’s entirety. “All of them.”
Do you understand now why I see it my way? Keep in mind my end of the communication. I asked specific questions and worked transparently. Often I was given truncated or vague answers, but in context of what I have asked or stated, their answers have been quite clear.
Can we please not go round and round now that I have enumerated for you the reasons? You can certainly disagree with me, but rehashing minutia when I have a plethora of support for my interpretation is exhausting for me. It’s too depressing and this kind of thing is part of the reason that I just had to get the eff away from this. It consumes a person and I won’t let it consume me.
Given the level of cooperation from the DOH, I have confirmed to my satisfaction that Obama amended his vital record. Am I 100% sure? No. Am I more than 90%, yes.
I happen to think >90% is reason enough for any real investigative journalist to ask about it, not that it would happen, but that is how compelling my experience was. You can take that <10% and run with it.
But you need not ask me why I think this or that, now you know.
That was an exaggeration to demonstrate the problem with parsing statements. One can take it too far.
They’re only supposed to be able to ignore me if I ask for something I’ve already asked for before.
But then, Onaka and the AG office have ignored every communication I’ve ever made to their office for the past year, so I guess that tells me how much “stuff” happens in the government offices there anyway. lol
And the HDOH sent my money back on Day 7 after my only request for the computer-generated 1961 birth index, saying I had missed a 20-day deadline. I’m getting into their heads so bad they imagine me sending requests before I even actually do. lol.
They’ve got until this Friday to show me my request for the computer-generated 1961 birth index, including the date they received it in their office. We’ll see if they send it. The only request I sent was in their office with the money order prepayment at 6:02AM on Aug 4th, and the day they sent my money back (supposedly because I had missed a 20-business-day deadline to fulfill my obligations for that request) was on Aug 13 - the 7th business day after I made my request.
On August 7th - 4 days after my request and payment was in their office - the AP printed an article quoting Janice Okubo as saying they offer the computer-generated 1961 birth index for $98.75 but hadn’t received any money for it yet and were asking the AG if they could stop offering it.
Mark Niesse told me that his interview with Janice Okubo for that article was done during the business day on Aug 4th. My request and money was in their office before the work day began on Aug 4th.
So there we have it in the public record that Okubo said they were still offering that record AFTER my request and money was in their office.
Now they’re trying to back out. A person can’t help but wonder why. And whether Okubo could be charged with false advertising in that article, or something. lol
I know, I know, I added it for a little levity.=P
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.