" “How Conveeeenient.”
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?”
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.
Well.. I appreciate your dedication.
I can’t say I expect your efforts to have any effect upon anything.
Arguing against gravity may have it’s points, but gravity does not give a crap.
Good luck. I too think Obama is hiding stuff.
I don’t, however, expect anyone short of God to be able to DO anything about it.
Guy was born of a divided citizenship anyway.
His birth certificate has a grievous error on it, if there is one.
He could just as easily show us the Birth Certificate he found among his mother’s belongings when she died, in 1995.
He won’t and there is no legal or lawful obligation for him to.
Ding me HG.
BTW, those blog pimps is goings way. ‘Cept Jimmuh. But he is at least trying to improve.
I appreciate your input.
I agree with the premise, disagree with the effectiveness.
A good example, us, of how divergent sides can disagree yet get along.
“‘Cept Jimmuh. But he is at least trying to improve.”
That boy is doing good. The project is full of “win”.
Cheers.
Ping to 59 and 62
It sure has worked in Barry’s favor. The very thing which got him US citizenship, is the very thing Hawaii wants to cover-up at all costs.
Lovely for Obama.
Absolutely and totally 100% corrupt, but lovely if you want to be POTUS at any cost.
Hawaii isn’t covering for Obama. Its is covering Citizenship Fraud and welfare fraud.
Obama just happened to get caught up in that!
And now it is too bad for all of us that an NBC impostor occupies the Oval office.
There is an OIP Opinion Letter which talks about the identity of a UIPA requester not being confidential. But it says that if the person does not provide their name the agency can’t disclose it. The form for requesting records notes that a person does not have to give their real name, but what they give needs to be enough for the agency to be able to contact them. The form says that contact information is confidential.
All I gave them for my name was “Nellie”. They have my contact information because it is the name on my e-mail account. Because their e-mailing program reveals the name on the account they were able to get my last name. I did not give them that. They extracted it by virtue of me having an e-mail address.
They have extracted information about others by looking online to find out about them. In fact, the supervisor at the Vital Records Office told the HDOH to lie about discloseability of a record because he had first checked online and saw that the requestor was a “birther”. Just like Janet Napolitano had her Homeland Security Dept doing as a regular procedure. UIPA says that who makes the request and why is none of the agency’s business. This snooping is against the spirit of UIPA, and this changing the answer based on the requestor’s politics is against the letter of the law as well.
The reason this matters to me is because the reason I got into this investigation in the first place even though my husband was not comfortable with it was because I did NOT have to give my full name, and because I expected a government agency to respect the information that I did or did not give them. The request form said I did not have to give my name and my contact information was confidential. When they gave the name on my e-mail account they were giving my contact information.
And I should say also that they did not redact the e-mail address for Leo Donofrio either. I have never contacted him via that e-mail because I knew he wanted his e-mail kept confidential, but the HDOH did not redact that as they are required by law.
The HDOH and OIP HAVE redacted THEIR contact information, when a particular individual has responded to a request. They have redacted the name of the agency worker who responded and their e-mail address. So the government worker can choose to be anonymous; we can not. That’s why you get a response from “hdohinfo” when you send a request to Janice Okubo. She gets to be anonymous.
I’ve mentioned that I have received threats. I doubt anybody would really want to take me on, but my husband is not thrilled about the thought of somebody finding me and trying.
For the HDOH to know that I have received threats, to be reminded that I did NOT give them my last name and they are required to keep my contact information (such as e-mail account name) confidential, and for them to refuse to obey the requirements even after being sent a Cease and Desist letter is beyond the pale.
I think this issue is doing more to ensure that Obama and all his enablers are defeated in the next election than you might suspect. When people see that the rule of law is at stake, it raises everything beyond mere politics.
So you're just pretending that the birther issue is relevant?
Waiting for the election? Which will happen.. birthers or not?
Wow! An anonymous blogger supposedly retained the services of a second anonymous person, who then made an unevidenced trip to Hawaii on an unspecified date six months ago, during which time was made an astounding discovery that the second anonymous person failed to make any record of (e.g., a simple photocopy of the index page where "Obama" would fall alphabetically), which the first anonymous person failed to report to anyone for six months (despite writing about said supposed trip way back in May).
Second-hand, undocumented, delayed, anonymous hearsay. Astounding and compelling evidence, that.
The rule of law is always relevant.
If elections are only going to change the name of the person who screws us while we’re powerless to effect the rule of law, then elections may not even be relevant.
Funny thing, Loren. Though the right to inspect includes the right to copy, the HDOH won’t allow the public to photocopy the index books.
Why do you suppose that is? Does it bother you at all that the rules are being blatantly ignored?
And while you’re at it, where is the duplicate record for Mae Obado?
I'll concede that point. Well stated.
Flipping out about where Obama was born, after he's got the office, is not germain to that point though.
Reasonable thought would see you get RID of Obama and ensure
thereafter that such usurpation did not again occur.
Yes you did. It's in the header of your e-mail. That means you gave it to them. In fact, it means that your full name was probably the first thing they saw when they got your email.
It's just silly to say that you didn't provide them information that openly appears in the header, just because you didn't *also* put it in the body of the email. The header is where your e-mail address is, for one thing. If you don't want your full name up there in the header, you go into whatever 'Account Settings' are on your email account, and change that.
Says who?
Anonymous Person #2, "TsunamiGeno," doesn't say anything about not being allowed to make copies. Moreover, the Post & Email's "researcher" obviously managed to come back with a copy of the index data, and even explicitly said there's an area where you go to make digital copies.
This happens because your e-mail account is set up explicitly to do this. If you do not want this to happen, you need to change your e-mail settings.
That you were not aware of this is irrelevant. You may as well complain about having sent an anonymous letter on your own personalized stationery.
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.