Posted on 09/22/2010 11:52:14 AM PDT by butterdezillion
The Great Birth Index Fiasco
Back in February I requested to see, among other things, the hand-written birth index for 1961 (or microfilms of the hand-written index), which existed in 1980 and was required to be retained permanently. The HI State Archivist confirmed that the HDOH should have the document, but the HDOH said they didn’t have it. The entire history of that request is here.
The concluding response the HDOH gave was a claim that they did not have the handwritten 1961 birth index but that they could print the computer-generated 1961 birth index at a cost of $98.75, which I should send if I wanted them to send the record. They enclosed a Notice to Requester which outlined the reason for the specific cost (which included 4 15-minute periods for an office worker to “segregate” records, in addition to an hour to search for the record). The fine print of the Notice to Requester said that all requester obligations for the request had to be fulfilled within 20 business days or the agency would consider the request abandoned. Because I had never made a request for the computer-generated birth index there were no obligations for me to fulfill. The HDOH was simply telling me what it would cost to fill the request if I chose to make it.
On July 29th I chose to make that request. I sent an e-mail saying that I would be sending a money order for $98.75 in order to get the computer-generated 1961 birth index and asking if I could have someone pick it up at their office on Thursday, Aug 5th, if the money order was in their office by Mon, Aug 2. I also sent a hand-written letter officially requesting the computer-generated birth index, together with a copy of the Notice to Requester on which the cost had been stated and a money order for $98.75. My mail delivery confirmation showed that the written request and money order was in the HDOH office at 6:08AM on Aug 4th. (I’ve mistakenly quoted it as 6:02AM elsewhere, including to the HDOH).
On Monday, Aug 2 I received an e-mail from the HDOH saying that my e-mail request had been marked by their IT Dept as being possible spam; I should re-send. I did not re-send because my question was moot by then and I had already sent the paper request and money order anyway.
On Aug 3rd Mark Niesse of the AP asked the HDOH for copies of the last 3 requests for Obama’s records. Mine was one of those 3 requests. My e-mail account name was not redacted from the records the HDOH gave Niesse; he contacted me via Facebook to see if he could interview me for an article he was working on. (I did not respond to him until after the article ran.) On Aug 4th (while my paper request and money order was in their office) Niesse interviewed Janice Okubo, who told him that they offer the computer-generated 1961 birth index for $98.75 but nobody had sent in any money yet and they were asking the AG for a ruling on whether they should continue to “offer” that. She said that Obama is in their 1961 birth index and they allow the public to view index records in their office.
So I have proof that my e-mail request for the computer-generated 1961 birth index had arrived in their office on July 29th and a paper request and money order had arrived in their office by the start of the day on Aug 4th – the very day when Janice Okubo told Mark Niesse that they offer the 1961 birth index for $98.75 (the amount of my money order). IOW, I have proof that I had my request and money order for the full amount in the HDOH office while they were still “offering” the 1961 birth index.
Niesse’s article wasn’t actually published until Saturday, Aug 7th. In response to Okubo’s public statement in that article that they hadn’t received any money from anybody, I contacted Niesse to find out when he had interviewed Okubo and found that it was during the workday on Aug 4th.
Because I was concerned about how Niesse was able to find out my last name when I only use the name “Nellie” in my communications with the HDOH, I also e-mailed a request to see any UIPA responses the HDOH had sent out containing a request by me. They sent me a cover letter and enclosed their response to Niesse’s request, including my July 29th request - flagged as possible spam but with almost the entire text visible.
I sent the HDOH a Cease and Desist letter , asking them to remove all references to my last name from their contacts with me and from the UIPA responses where they have referenced my last name. They have ignored my request, as their latest response to me contained my last name.
I also contacted the HDOH and after a series of calls and workers was told they couldn’t find a record of my request; they didn’t know what had happened to it but I should contact hdohinfo. So I did. Eventually they told me in an Aug 13th e-mail that they were sending back my money order because I had abandoned my request since I hadn’t responded to the Notice to Requester within 20 days. And sure enough, they sent my money order back.
I reminded them that the Notice to Requester had been sent to me to tell me that I COULD request the computer-generated 1961 birth index, since the request I HAD actually made (for the handwritten index) could not be filled because that permanent record no longer exists (they claim). I asked them exactly when they say they received my request for a computer-generated 1961 birth index, since it had not been 20 business days since my first contact with their office requesting that particular record. At first they insisted that they had already answered all my questions so I made an actual UIPA Request for a copy of my request for the computer-generated 1961 birth index, including the date that it arrived in their office.
They had already sent back the money order that was included with my paper request. They had replied to my e-mailed request, asking me to re-send it. And they had sent copies of my e-mailed request to both Mark Niesse and myself in response to UIPA requests. That’s 4 different times that the HDOH showed that they had my request in their office - the e-mail request received by July 29 and the snail-mail request by Aug 4th.
On the 10th business day they e-mailed to say there were no records responsive to my request – that they had no record of my request for the computer-generated 1961 birth index. What they had acknowledged 4 different times before they now claim they don’t have.
They’ve also said they only collect birth data in 5-year increments so they can’t release the 1961 birth index. So in the same request as in the last paragraph I also requested “to see any communications to or from your office regarding what changed from the time you told me that you could release the computer-generated birth index for 1961 and now, as well as any duly-passed law or regulation which says that index data may only be released in increments of 5 years.”
No records responsive to my request. (It is worth noting that their MARRIAGE INDEX is in a 6-year increment for the years 1960-65 only, based upon copies of birth index pages they sent in response to a request)
I’ve also asked to see their communications asking for a ruling by the Hawaii Attorney General . They responded that there are no records responsive to my request. Compare this with the AG Administrative Rules’ procedures to amend rules (see Subchapter 4 ) or to ask for a declaratory judgment (see Subchapter 5 ) from the AG – which clearly require written communications.
To summarize:
2. The HDOH has changed their claims to say they can only release index data in increments of 5 years. But there are no laws or regulations which say that and they have the physical capability of printing whatever they want. Disclosure of the exact year of birth is apparently not forbidden, because according to Niesse’s article, Okubo already told him that Obama is in their 1961 birth index. HRS 338-18 requires index data to be released to the public.
3. Janice Okubo stated in a public interview for an article that was published nationally that they were asking the Hawaii Attorney General for a ruling on the implementation and/or interpretation of laws and rules – a process which is required to be done in writing. But the HDOH claims there are no communications to or from their office regarding why their “offer” of the 1961 birth index no longer exists.
4. All this is done to keep from having to release index data they claim is already accessible to the public at their office. They have stated that all index data is really about Obama. They have stated that Obama is in the 1961 birth index. But they appear to be lying and/or illegally destroying records, as well as disobeying HRS 338-18, UIPA, and their own Administrative Rules in order to try to avoid having to put their money where their mouth is. I give the complete details about this case because it is representative of a whole host of similar experiences I have had with the HDOH, as those who have read the blog are aware. Sadly, this seems to be typical fare from this government agency. And nobody in Hawaii’s government, media, or law enforcement will hold them accountable for it.
But reasonable people all over this country are asking, “Why? Why so much unethical and illegal behavior to hide the public index records they say they’ve already confirmed?”
LorenC, the anonymous poster.
________________
He’s not anonymous, everyone knows who he is and has seen his photo. total geek.
:)
As a point of reference...has anyone ever requested and received the list from other years? Say, the 1960 and/or the 1962.
Sure would be interesting if people requested and received the two years surrounding the target year...would raise some more questions.
Just a thought to ponder....
As a point of reference...has anyone ever requested and received the list from other years? Say, the 1960 and/or the 1962.
Sure would be interesting if people requested and received the two years surrounding the target year...would raise some more questions.
Just a thought to ponder....
So my family can know when they get a message from me.
I know, it seems stupid in retrospect. I guess I’ll chalk it up to a learning experience.
??? Can’t they tell who you are simply by your email address? I’ve never put my real name on any email account and all of my family knows when they get an email from me. They know my email addresses, they don’t need a name. I also tell people to NOT put my full name beside my email address in their address book. I don’t want my name showing up in headers beside my email address.
When I put someones email address into my address book, out of courtesy, I never use their full name. Just enough info for me to know who it is.
In the CDC Natality Report for 1961, at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf , on p 205 it gives a breakdown of births by attendant.
Total births in Hawaii - 17,616
Physician in hospital - 17,516
Physician not in hospital 58
Midwife 0
So there were apparently 42 unattended births in Hawaii in 1961.
On p. 205 it lists
Rather than having it appear that they treat Obama’s records differently, they just don’t follow the rules on any of the requests.
That’s why they won’t release any non-certified abbreviated certificates of any kind, for any person, even though their Administrative Rules allow them to be released to anybody who asks for them. And UIPA requires that whatever may be released, must be released. The Ombudsman’s Office indirectly affirmed that this is the case and that if I wanted UIPA to be followed I should appeal to the OIP. But the OIP responded by saying that the HDOH gets to decide what the laws mean.
Get that - not the attorneys in the OIP Office or the attorneys in the Attorney General’s office. The HDOH (i.e. Fukino and Okubo, who are a doctor and a secretary). They get to decide what HRS 338 means and the OIP will not make judgments on whether they are actually following UIPA - which is the only reason the OIP even exists (to make sure that departments obey UIPA).
And it’s the same with other stuff. You can’t get a letter of verification, for instance, even though it’s in their rules. Okubo told me flat-out that they don’t do letters of verification. I can’t remember if I asked her whether they changed the law somehow, because HRS 338-18 mentions letters of verification, IIRC.
Basically the long and short of it is that they are breaking almost all of the rules to hide Obama’s records and to try to hide that they are changing rules for Obama’s sake.
In the P&E article, the researcher who visited the HDOH Office said that a woman in front of her in line ordered a long-form BC and was told it would arrive in the mail in about a week. Yet we’ve heard Danae’s account of how they have lost her order twice (IIRC) and are still delaying.
What it comes down to is this: they trust the people in Hawaii and will follow the rules just as always for them. They don’t trust anybody outside of Hawaii and they will sandbag and gaslight them in every way they can, because they are convinced that everything is about Obama and they can’t have anybody find out how things really are in their office.
Is that discrimination? Heck, yes.
Good counsel. Thank you.
I didn’t set up the account, had no idea until yesterday how to change any of the settings on the account. When my husband set up the account he had no idea I would be getting embroiled in this.
We were young, we were innocent. Now we’re old and less stupid.
For sure. For instance, butterdezillion would do fine as a fake name.
As long as you never connect it with your real name. Because, if you do, Google might make the connection and Wolfram might notice that your phone number is a multiple of 59.
You omitted how the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands changed the rules to cover for Obama’s COLB.
http://www.theobamafile.com/_opinion/HawaiianConspiracy.htm
Not agreeing with your pet conspiracy theory is being a pain in the ass?
Pardon me all to hell for having an opinion.
Hi Beckwith! Good to see you!
I had posted about it at some length earlier up in the thread. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2594341/posts?page=62#62
Obama is merely taking advantage of his knowledge of Hawaii’s fraud. That is his leverage, and Hawaii REALLY doesn’t want it exposed. Here is the post in case ya don’t want to go to #62. I think its worth repeating:
To: humblegunner
Humblegunner,
The long and short of it is this.
Hawaii is covering up Citizenship and welfare fraud on a HUGE scale.
Obama got his COLB most likely the same way thousands of other babies did who were actually born somewhere OTHER than Hawaii. A late birth form filed with an address listed as the place of birth.
Now, because of THAT, Obama CANNOT prove where he was born.
If he has a Late Form or a long form with a residential address on it, he cannot prove he was born in Hawaii. Why? Because Hawaii was ACTIVELY registering babies as born within the state in order to qualify for MORE federal dollars from the U.S. Government.
Hawaii literally registered thousands of babies doing this, and a vast number of them, not having been born in the United States, have no right to the United States Citizenship they were given.
Hawaii isn’t covering for Obama. Its is covering Citizenship Fraud and welfare fraud.
Obama just happened to get caught up in that!
Maybe his grandmother made use of that if he was born in Kenya as people suspect.
Maybe his own mother did when she recognized that her baby would benefit from having American Citizenship. Maybe she did it to spite Obama Sr. for having another wife she didn’t know about, who the heck knows. One way or another, Obama has a form that does not prove his right to American Citizenship.
But THAT was an accident. That is what people have used to say, “oh yea right, like grandma knew he was gonna be POTUS one day and would need a newspaper announcement”. No. Obama’s circumstance just happened to fall in a time when the State of Hawaii was committing Welfare and citizenship Fraud.
THAT is why the republican governor is covering this up. It’s not about Obama, its about the crimes the State Committed the time of Obama’s birth and for YEARS after it as well.
Obama just happens to be shining a HUGE spotlight on the steaming pile of poo laid by the State.
Obama is TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT. He knows Hawaii isn’t going to admit anything, or stop covering his butt. Obama knows what Hawaii was up to and likely used it as some HARD leverage against the state.
Hawaii isn’t covering Obama. Hawaii is covering its OWN butt, Obama is just USING it to his advantage.
Post 59 is pretty good too:
To: American Constitutionalist
Yep.
The Lawyer working for the Hawaiian Democrat Party was Stanly Ann’s Lawyer in her divorce. that lawyer was working for the Hawaiian Democrat Party as well. Has been for YEARS, 15 I think it is...
He knows and likely has specific records on Barry because of that Divorce.
He knows who Barry is, knew and worked for his mom.
That lawyer is likely to know that Hawaii did engage in massive Citizenship Fraud from the time the State was ratified and became the 50th State.
That lawyer would KNOW balls to bones, that the State of Hawaii could NOT certify that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen of the United States and Constitutionally Eligible to run for and occupy the position of POTUS.
That Lawyer might be the ONLY honest player in this whole mess, other than keeping his mouth shut - lying by omission is still a lie.
He knew Hawaii could not certify Obama... and they refused to.
So Nancy now had her precious parts in a vice..... How to keep Obama on the Ballot in a seemingly constitutional manner? NOT having him on the ballot.... disqualifying him because of the lack of birth state certification was her only other choice. It was either find a way to make it APPEAR he had been certified, or take him off the ballot. Something she didn’t want to do because she WANTED him POTUS. She could work with him. I am willing to bet that she has little such good working relationships with say... Hillary... which would have been the person who would have benefited the most from that act of honesty on the part of Nancy. Somehow I don’t think Hillary and Nancy are BFF’s. There is also of course, the threats of riots if the “first black man” didn’t get the nomination... the accusations of racism... Nancy would have been the most hated person EVER by the black community, not to mention a huge number of brain dead kool-aide drinkers and ..... a HUGE number of Democrat Liberal Donors who have given vast sums of money to Obama... oh no... Nancy couldn’t NOT certify Obama.
So don’t wonder why a BIG supporter of Hillary Clinton, Phil Berg, waded into this constitutionality issue FIRST before the election! Hillary is perfectly well aware of ALL of this. I am willing to bet someone who knew someone got into touch with Phil Berg with the tip that he might be able to help Hillary get the Nomination when it was beginning to become clear that she was losing! Or maybe that friend of a friend of a someone just passed along the information to Berg just as insurance. We will likely never know. Berg has never tipped off what set him onto his path that I know of.
What Nancy did is NOT part of the legal constitutional proceedings for POTUS nominations. Her action ALONE might well invalidate Obama’s Nomination and subsequent election.
There are a rather large number of people and an entire state government invested in covering up Barack Obama’s Birth Records.
Like I said, this makes Watergate look like a kiddie pool.
I look forward to reading it.
Like I said, Obama is just using the state’s widespread citizenship fraud against it, forcing them to cover his rear on his OWN citizenship issue.
The more I think about it, the more this seems like the simplest answer. Occam’s razor would tell us that the simplest answer is most likely the correct one!
Obama has gotten the enthusiastic cooperation in hiding his birth records by the state of Hawaii because in doing so, Hawaii continues to cover its own Fraud.
I am utterly certain that it was made clear to certain individuals that ANY exposure of ANY of Obama’s records would result in an investigation into the States Birth registration procedures from the time it was made a state until now. I am certain it would have been made clear that it could involve revoking citizenship of thousands of individuals who’s birth in the islands is suspect.... talk about a MASSIVE scandal! OMG. Massive Scandal is only where it would START! I am certain Hawaii has been threatened, either directly or indirectly, with that very scenario.
Sorry, that is not sunlight. That is likely TV lights kept at the campaign headquarters. Those are outside windows. There are no interior windows like that in the open landscape area of the Chicago Headquarters.
If you want to see what this area looks like it daylight and sunshine simply go to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6-FHxPy0E0
In fact go to the 1:08 mark of the video. You will see vertical window coverings (maybe blinds) over Alexrod’s shoulder. This matches the vertical structures over the windows in the photo. In the video it is also clear how bright the area is during daylight due to the large outside windows. The dark background in the photo would be impossible if the light source were ‘the sun’.
The photos from Fact Check just make no sense. As others have noted they are not at all professional, and as noted here they were not even likely taken at the same time.
Since we are back to these infamous photos who’s supposed owners will not talk. Here is another thing that the video above helped with. If all of these photos were taken in in the Chicago HQ it was a puzzle as to the place where the ones with wood grain were taken. There is almost no wood grain surfaces in the Chicago HQ. Neither in the open landscape or in the offices (thanks Katie for the tour - it was helpful!). But I said ‘almost’. Look at the video exact at the 3:00 mark. In the press area in the back is the only wood grain surface in the whole video of Obama’s HQ. If those picture were taken in a 7 minute sequence then that surface is the likely place where the close-ups with wood grain were taken.
I thought someone said those photos were taken at someones office. If that office is not at Obama HQ that would be impossible if the original EXIF data was correct in terms of the photo to photo timing. Remember, Henig and Miller have claimed that the camera merely had the wrong date and time in it. But the EXIF data indicated the whole shoot lasted around 7 minutes - start to finish.
I am impressed that you took the time to repeat the sequence and see what is clearly visible with some very simple enhancement. The bottom line - these ‘photos’ would get ripped to shreds in the court of law.
You know what they say about opinions.
And that’s why it’s so significant that the judges are all refusing to let the case be heard on its merits, and why it’s so heinous that we have no prosecuting attorneys who will investigate.
If the normal protocols, rules, laws, etc were followed this would have been over a long, long time ago. What we’re looking at here is the failure of our government, media, and law enforcement systems - and that should be a serious concern for anybody, regardless of what they think about the eligibility issue.
Thanks for the information you’ve given. You’ve obviously put in some valuable time on this, and I appreciate your sharing that.
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.