Before you guys go too far off the tracks, Honolulu County property records show that Loretta Fuddy has owned the apartment at 1629 Waikahalulu Lane, A211 since 1993. The mortgages listed on both her 2011 and 2012 Disclosure forms appear to be for that address. She may have refinanced the loans in 2012. And she may not be currently living there, maybe she bought a new house and the apartment hasn’t sold yet.
The gifts appear to be trip expenses where the sponsor picked up the tab. She may have been an invited speaker.
I am not remotely an expert in these things, but the more I look at the $500,000.00, the more likely it seems to be something like the situation 4zoltan mentions in which Fuddy would have acquired a new home but retained the apartment which had formerly been her home--perhaps she may be planning to make a rental property of it. If indeed she was living in the apartment for the 2011 term of the first disclosure, she would have had no need to list her equity in it. Once she moved elsewhere, the property would have become subject to entry on the disclosure form in 2012.
Nevertheless, even if that scenario accounts for the appearance of the $500K apartment on the 2012 form (and its absence on the 2011 form), it still seems noteworthy to me that Fuddy's listed debt decreased from $272K to $194K (reduction of $78K) during the same interval that she apparently transitioned into a different home while maintaining ownership of the apartment, all while earning approximately a $100K salary. Once again, I don't mean to make a mountain out of a mole hill (the digital evidence of document fraud is mountain enough for me), but it still leaves me wondering how Fuddy made that salary go so very far for her.
About the "gifts", again, I can see from the descriptions that these amounts are attributed to travel expenses. I didn't take the time to size up exactly what qualifies as gifts needing to be disclosed, but the amounts left a little question in my mind as to why it would be necessary to regard these things as gifts if they merely amounted to job-related professional travel expenses. I didn't feel the figures represented anything like a smoking gun, but I felt that I should get that data on the record as well in case someone who knows better than me what is normal and what is not could add some insight as to whether her "gifts" might be cause for concern. One thing I should have done (and still have not) was to see how officers of other agencies have typically reported their gift disclosures in Hawaii. My expectation would be that, so long as they are not frivolously exorbitant, travel expenses for professional conferences would tend to not be disclosed under the description of "gifts," but once again, for emphasis, I'm no expert about such things.
When I posted those links to the disclosure forms along with my speculative questions, I was trying to err on the side of providing too much information (especially given that Hawaii agencies sometimes suddenly revise their websites particularly with respect to the Health Department related matters) so that discerning people could weigh everything. I didn't want to overlook/suppress the data I stumbled onto in the forms, simply concluding in a vacuum that whatever minor suspicion I had was merely the product of my confusion and hyperactive imagination.
In general, if government figures were to be influenced through monetary gain, I would assume that the tension between legal requirements to report information and self-protective needs to keep it quiet may result in a strategy that technically satisfies the need to report but utilizes sufficient obfuscation that no one can easily see that graft is in play.
Besides all that, I can't deny that I take some pleasure in that thought that perhaps Ms. Fuddy knows a bunch of people are combing through her records to find anything they can that is troubling. If she is content to play games with the truth in front of an entire nation over a matter as weighty as lending her support to perjury and forgery conveyed through the White House website, then she should also have at least the little bit of stress that comes from knowing she is personally being scoured (within legal, reasonable means) by thousands of watchful eyes for signs of impropriety.
Even still, I would readily have this issue of the disclosures completely fade from sight if it doesn't hold enough weight to justify the energy diverted to it--and thus away from many other clearer indications of wrongdoing regarding Obama's identifying documents and the HDOH and the selective service system, etc.