“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.