Posted on 02/07/2010 9:15:33 PM PST by butterdezillion
Here’s some new information – haven’t even added it to my blog yet.
According to http://uspolitics.about.com/od/senators/a/barack_obama.htm , Axelrod started videotaping Obama in 2003 for footage that he later used in Obama’s January 16, 2007 announcement that he would run for the presidency.
According to the UIPA responses received by Terri K and myself and the retention schedules for receipts, Obama’s amendment happened sometime between September of 2006 and January of 2007, since those records are to be retained for 3 years and receipts for fees to amend Obama’s vital records were denied to Terri K in September of 2006 and no longer existed when I requested them in January of 2010.
IOW, the DOH has revealed that in the last 6 months before Obama announced his run for the presidency he amended his birth record in Hawaii. That amendment was before the Factcheck COLB was printed in June of 2007 so if that COLB was legitimate it would definitely have had note of the amendment. So the Factcheck and Fight the Smears COLB’s are definitely forgeries and not just a COLB printed before the amendment was made.
Again, my conclusions are entirely based upon what the Hawaii Department of Health has stated in official responses to official UIPA requests and the laws, rules, and regulations which govern the records and statements they have made. If we take Hawaii at its word this is the natural conclusion we would make.
The certificate number and filing date that are mismatched according to the Nordyke certificate numbers and filing date confirm this also.
I haven’t checked this out yet, but the documentary requirements to amend a birth certificate 45 years after the birth would be hard to come by. What kind of evidence would be sufficient to prove that a record in existence for 45 years and never corrected before had been wrong all along? What would a person legitimately correct 45 years after the birth – after having used that birth certificate for 45 years whenever documentation was needed and never challenging the facts contained on it?
Okay. Gt a link to an on-the-record statement by her? Or do you only have TerriK's claim that she actually said it?
Oh - and I have the State of Hawaii General Records Schedule, which says that 3.A.3 and 3.A.4 (cash receipts and sales journal) are required to be retained for 3 years).
So I’ve got 2 e-mail statements from the Dept of Health itself - one in Sept 2009 saying the amendment records exist and one in January 2010 saying the same records no longer exist - and the government records schedule which shows the documents are kept for 3 years and then destroyed.
If that’s not credible, then please tell me your standards for credibility.
On my blog I have the e-mail that Terri K sent and the e-mail response from Janice Okubo, as well as the OIP’s final letter concluding that the records had been denied.
You can access all that stuff at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
I’m hoping to get another article posted soon containing the e-mail I sent asking for the same records as Terri K asked for, along with the response that Okubo sent me saying they don’t have the records. I’ve got quite a few irons in the fire right now and haven’t been able to just sit down and do it.
Oh, what the heck. May as well do it now. I’ll paste it here and then into the document I’ll post on my blog. Here’s the exchange, with latest communication first:
-—— Original Message -——
From: Okubo, Janice S.
To: Nellie (redacted)
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:50 PM
Subject: RE: UIPA Request
Aloha Ms. (redacted),
There are no records responsive to your request.
From: Nellie (redacted)
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:45 AM
To: Okubo, Janice S.
Subject: Fw: UIPA Request
Aloha, Ms Okubo.
It has been almost a month since I first sent this. Please e-mail me to confirm that you have received this.
Thank you.
Nellie
-—— Original Message -——
From: Nellie (redacted)
To: chiyome.fukino@doh.hawaii.gov
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 4:28 PM
Subject: UIPA Request
12-10-09
Dear Dr. Fukino:
Persuant to UIPA, I request an electronic copy of the invoice and receipt for the fee(s) charged to and paid by President Barack Obama, or anyone claiming to represent him, for amendments made to his vital records.
Please include an electronic signature or a cover letter with signature verifying that your response is from your office.
Thank you.
Nellie
One of the reasons it takes so much time to deal with this stuff is because the DOH doesn’t answer a lot of the requests until you remind them that they are one, two, five weeks late in getting back to you.
And when you remind them they often tell you they never received your request in the first place.
So I started asking for “Read” receipts. After sending me one “Read” receipt, Okubo decided she’d click “No” rather then “Yes” when asked if she would send a “Read” receipt. So I’ve gone to re-sending a request every couple hours until she acknowledges that she got it - after telling her that is what I will do. I’ve got requests that I have sent to her seven times before she ever acknowledged that she got them.
Then the responses she sends contain every obfuscation you can imagine. I’ve got transactions with her where I’ve had to tell her 5 or 6 different times from the Administrative Rules or Hawaii statutes what her responsibility is - and she STILL won’t do what she’s required.
All the while having to remind her every 10 days or so that she still hasn’t responded to me.... (After she had been pleading she is so busy I requested her to send all the UIPA responses she had sent out in 2 weeks. She had sent out 5 standard, carbon-copy “the record is protected from disclosure” responses, one variation of the same thing to me, and another variation to somebody who had asked for the same thing I had asked for. That’s what’s keeping her so busy that she can’t even click “Yes” instead of “No” - which would have saved her having to read 6 more attempts from me on just one request.)
So trying to find where you’re even at in the process takes a separate index file of dates and clock-times that the communications happened so you can find the e-mails. I’m a bit behind on indexing the communications so it takes some time to look through everything trying to find which response goes to which request.
In one interview Okubo was whining about how they just want to get back to doing their jobs at the DOH, if only these crazy “birthers” would leave them alone. Sorry, Janice. If you were actually doing your job you could have saved us ALL a LOT of time. If you were showing any common courtesy such as letting us know you received our requests when we ask for verification (i.e. click the Yes instead of the No, which requires no extra time or effort), you could save us all a lot of headaches. If you weren’t changing your answers and refusing to follow your own rules you could just look up the information you’re required to disclose, send it, and be done with it.
Why won’t you do that?
What am I missing?
Okay. I’m having trouble getting the Wordpress edits done right.
This is the page that the hyperlink about this subject should go to:
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/
Sorry about that. I meant to get the hyperlinks corrected, since somebody was nice enough to tell me how to do it yesterday. I worked most of yesterday and into the wee hours of the morning for my part-time job so I’m dragging today. Sorry to be so suffy. Hopefully this will make more sense now that you can see what I meant to have linked.
Do you understand the part about how the DOH can only deny access to a record that exists? If they say they deny access to a record it is a confirmation that the requested record exists.
If you click on the hyperlinks in the page I gave you it shows Terri K’s request for receipts for fees Obama paid to amend his birth certificate and Okubo’s response - a denial of access, which is an admission that the requested records exist.
See, this is why the Hawaii DOH can get away with this crap. It’s couched in layers of legal-speak that most people aren’t interested in enough to pursue it.
There’s no way they’re gonna come out and say, “Hey! Obama’s got an amended birth record that ain’t worth doo-doo legally speaking and what he’s shown the world is actually a forgery that we refuse to report!”
They’re going to couch it in legal terms nobody can understand and then HIDE the Administrative Rules which would help people know what they just said.
But there it is. They confirmed that Obama amended his birth certificate.
Sorry, but that looks like pretty thin gruel to me. You're assuming the DOH spokesperson always follows protocal exactly, something which bureaucrats seldom do in my experience. Never attribute malice to what can be explained by plain sloth or incompetence.
Look at it from the DOH's point of view. Terri K sent a long, rambling email asking for a laundry list of minutia, not just the receipts. Most likely the DOH spokesperson looked at it, saw that the documents either did not exist or they were not allowed to release them, decided she had better things to do than to parse through the email, and replied with a "request denied."
To read into that a confirmation that an amendment was made is a pretty large stretch, to say the least.
Especially, per your own admission, the DOH later explicitly denied that there are any amendments to the record.
Sounds like a typical government bureaucracy to me.
Oh, zeestephen! Your information contradicts mine.
I’d been informed by someone who knows the procedures in Hawaii that all COLBs produced from amended BCs have to be stamped AMENDED.
Did you work in Hawaii’s DOH?
Butter, I don’t know if there are any honest judges left in America. After all, Rahm Emmanuel claims “We Democrats own Hawaii”.
This happenned last week in Washington, D.C.
“Last Friday [Feb.9,2010], Arthur J. Gonzalez, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Federal Court, Southern District of New York, issued his judgment denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by attorneys Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon in the case RE: in Chrysler LLC et al., on behalf of 76 former Chrysler dealerships...”
“Just days before the ruling, on Feb. 1, 2010, Judge Gonzalez received a promotion from Obama to the position of Chief Justice of the Bankruptcy court in his district, according to the official website of the same: raising questions of whether there has been a quid pro quo exchange in return for upholding his own fraud, in support of Obama’s political agenda to destroy Chrysler and reorganize it to the advantage of the labor unions.”
To read more go to:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/09/judge-arthur-j-gonzalez-claims-right-to-commit-fraud/
You forgot one: little Barry’s BC was a part of Ann’s divorce papers from Obama.
Never worked at DOH.
I put in several hours of research on Hawaii's birth certificate regulations.
I can't find a regulation that requires Short Forms to be stamped or to list all amendments.
The Short Form “butterdezillion” linked to had a name change amendment.
In retrospect, listing a name change on the Short Form makes good sense, since it relates directly to identity, which is the purpose of a birth certificate.
I'm always ready to learn or be corrected.
If I missed something, please send me the citation.
This wasn’t just one communication and wasn’t just an oopsy, I forgot type of situation. Their answer was the culmination of quite a bit of communication they had with both Terri K and the Office of Information Practices. The whole pont of UIPA is Uniform Information Practices. There are formal opinion letters written by government attorneys, governing exactly what the different responses mean and what must be disclosed.
This isn’t an “off-the-cuff” answer, just shooting out the mouth whatever they feel like. If that is what they think they can do then they should have been fired a long, long time ago.
They’ve been hearing about the consequences of their answer for the last five months - including the threat of disciplinary action which led to Fukino offering the OIP director a job he couldn’t refuse. They have corrected their answers several times on other requests when they realized that their answer was not correct. They’ve had 5 months of having this answer in their face every day - and at any point they could have said, “Oops. We just weren’t paying close enough attention.”
They didn’t.
They have instead engaged in deceptive practices that I haven’t even mentioned in the blog - as well as the illegal and unethical behavior I did mention in the blog.
And the amendment isn’t the only problem with the Factcheck COLB. The certificate number on there can’t work with the certificate number and filing date on the Nordyke birth certificates. I haven’t added this to the blog yet either, but the certificate number is supposed to be discloseable because it was authorized for disclosure before UIPA became law and so its authorization for disclosure is thus grandfathered in. The DOH has jealously guarded Obama’s certificate number. You wouldn’t believe the exchanges we’ve had about it. They don’t want to obey their own rules and give a non-certified copy of his abbreviated birth certificate partly because it would have to have the birth certificate number on it. But that number is supposed to be disclosed. Why won’t they disclose it?
You’ve been more than fair and you’ve been honest with me, curious, and I appreciate that. And patient with me getting my information together. I don’t know how deep you are willing to go into all this, but there is much more that I haven’t mentioned. There’s a whole pattern of doing everything in their power to not have to follow the rules and laws, and of fudging their answers. If you (and others) have the stamina and interest to hear it all I’m game to tell it, but it’s like a series of dots that make an image all together. Any one dot may seem boring and small, but only by putting them all together can you get a clear picture.
Just a couple corrections on what you said. The DOH has never denied that there were amendments. They denied that they had the receipts - the same receipts that they told Terri K she was not authorized to see. When asked to see the amended birth certificate their response was that the record, if any, is protected from disclosure. IOW, they refuse to either confirm or deny that there is such a record. (See, they know the difference between a denial which confirms the existence of a record and a Glomarized response. Their response to Terri K was a denial that confirms the existence of the record.)
There is no legal basis for them doing that. When asked to see Obama’s DELAYED birth certificate they gave a non-Glomarized response. They revealed that they don’t have that record. If they could reveal that a delayed BC doesn’t exist, why couldn’t they reveal that an amended BC doesn’t exist?
But I can tell this probably doesn’t make sense to somebody who hasn’t been saturated in the rules, procedures, opinion letters, etc for the last 6 months. It’s not a matter of the DOH not always following protocol exactly - it’s more a question of whether they EVER follow protocols.
Sorry to ramble. I should be in bed.
It just never ends. Unbelievable.
I requested receipts, invoices and Obama’s own UIPA request to access and amend his birth certificate.
An attorney at the OIP, Linden Joesting, advised me TWICE that the DOH had to tell me if the records did not exist.
The DOH didn’t tell me that, though. They said the records were protected by State Law.
THEN, I appealed that decision with the OIP and lo-and-behold, Linden Joesting was assigned to investigate and rule on my appeal.
She denied me access as well citing they were protected by state law.
I have been 100% forthcoming with my communications with Hawaii. I have handed all of the correspondence off to Butter, she even knows my REAL name.
It’s not as thin as you think.=)
Just wanted to clear that up.
The Administrative Rules don’t distinguish between short-form and long-form. When it says that the amendment must be noted on the certificates it doesn’t distinguish between the two. The abbreviated certificate is supposed to be a true representation of what is on the standard copy.
And BTW, the DOH is also breaking their laws on what is contained on their standard birth certificate. As of October 2008 (when Fukino made her announcement that they have Obama’s original “birth certificate”) they illegally changed their definition of “standard birth certificate” to make it include only what is on the Factcheck COLB, plus birthplaces of the parents. The Admin. Rules refer to the “confidential section”. There is no confidential section any more. PHR Chapter 8 says that certificates are to contain AT LEAST as much information as is included in the (now-called) CDC’s standard certificates. You can see the information that’s in the CDC’s standard birth certificate here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/FinalBirthSpecs3-24-2005.pdf There are 58 items besides the file processing items.
So the DOH is monkeying with what they call a “certificate” - totally oblivious to the requirements in the rules and laws.
But the rules and laws make no distinction between the standard and abbreviated certificates. The same people are eligible to receive them. They carry the same legal weight. They are subject to the same requirements.
Thanks, MT.
I think we’ve so much been in the thick of what the DOH has been doing that we don’t see the little dots any more. We see the big picture and it’s hard to convey that to somebody else without going through a lot of detail - detail that most people don’t want to wade through.
You know, I look at the e-mails I’ve sent and you’ve sent and I wonder why we didn’t throw up our hands in despair.
One time I asked for the index data for birth certificate #151-61-xxxxx (whatever the Factcheck number was). They denied me access because I hadn’t shown I have a direct and tangible interest in President Obama’s birth certificate. I asked if that meant that the cert# was for Obama’s birth certificate, since that’s the only instance where their answer would even make sense. You would not believe the spluttering I had to endure. It was unbelievable.
And the way they tried to Glomarize their responses without letting us know they were doing it - so we would never know whether they had told us anything or not.
And trying to say we were asking for a “verification” (which Okubo actually finally admitted they don’t even do. They just give a certified copy if somebody asks for a statutory verification).
Unbelievable. But if we hadn’t lived through it we probably wouldn’t realize just how bad it was either.
“...Honest black people should be the most enraged by this lying bastard because his deceits will create a hurdle too high for an honest black person seeking the Presidency. The first black president ...”
BHO said in his autobiography that he chose to be Black when he was in his teens. So being “black” is something a person can decide to be or not be. This would explain why Clinton was called our first black president by the MSM.
According to the dictionary, a person who has a Caucasian mother and a Black father is “mulatto”. BHO is our first mulatto president.
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.