Posted on 03/11/2010 10:21:48 AM PST by butterdezillion
I've added to my blog a post showing that OIP Attorney Linden Joesting, when asked point-blank on Feb 22nd whether Miss Tickly's understanding that Obama's BC was amended is correct, refused to correct MT's understanding. After 2 days of asking for clarification on the question, she responded 3 days later by saying she didn't have time to answer the question.
The legal meaning of the denial of access, which has been documented through multiple consistent sources, stands. It would have taken no more time for Joesting to say that MT misunderstood than to say she ddn't have time to answer the question. The OIP wants to ignore the question because the answer would confirm the fact of Obama's amended BC.
The link to the article will be in the 1st reply to the initial post.
Thanks for the tip, jla. Humblegunner, do you have any idea why Word would all of a sudden encounter a persistent problem that keeps me from being to publish a Word document to my Wordpress blog?
Any help anybody can give is most appreciated.
And hey, Humblegunner, are you the person who taught me how to insert links into my posts? If you are, I cannot tell you how many times I have thanked God for you in the last 2 months. Whoever it was who helped me has been given a million warm fuzzies in spirit even if I haven’t located you to say thanks for it yet. =)
I have no clue, I've never messed with Wordpress.
Here is something I HAVE figured out, though:
Youtube embed code (and maybe other stuff) will NOT post directly onto
a Blogspot page. Copy the text onto a txt (Wordpad, Notepad)
file and from there onto the blog. This may not pertain to
Wordpress.. but give it a shot.
Humblegunner, are you the person who taught me how to insert links into my posts?
Eees nothing, por nada. ;-)
Thanks. I’ll keep that in mind. I can’t get my computer to download the Flash player that is required for me to watch Youtube on my computer. My husband even tried getting it to work & wasn’t able to get Flash player on there - and he can do just about anything (Granted, I may be a little biased. lol). There’s actually quite a bit that has stopped working on my computer since January. Including, occasionally, my e-mail...
If you’ve never used Wordpress you’re not the guy I’m looking for (to thank anyway). lol. I copied the text from the person who helped me into an e-mail that I sent myself so I could see the instructions when I had more time. That was before I even knew how to ping, I was such a newbie. So I just now went back and found what he wrote but I forgot to put his name - one of those things I thought I’d be sure to remember I suppose.
Hopefully he knows who he is and knows he’s appreciated. Or hopefully my thanks and well-wishes translated into a big blessing for him somehow. What goes around comes around.
I will definitely remember humblegunner as the blog expert though. =) Is the handle associated with military?
JLA was being sarcastic. I'm kind of "anti-blog" but know how to operate.. or thwart.. them.
We have a disease here at FR, a growing number of "blog pimps"
who have signed up for no other purpose than to pimp their
sorry little blogs. Zicam doesn't work, nor penicillin or chemotherapy.
I use the "mockery" option. Not immediately effective, but I try to do my part.
I guess I’m guilty as charged. I’ve been a shameless blog pimp. And a shameless vexatious requestor too.
Gosh, I’m just a brazen hussy these days. lol.
I’m pretty new here so if I’m pimping too much somebody needs to knock me upside the head.
Can’t help you with your computer problem. But to comment on Ms. Tickley, the only way anyone is going to force the folks in Hawaii to uphold the law is through a lawsuit. Otherwise, they have decided you all are a bunch of ankle bitters they can disrespect at will.
Too bad Leo did not follow through on his promise to make them obey the law.
You are not a blog pimp. You are doing excellent and much appreciated work.
Thank you. I hope somebody will tell me if I wear out my welcome. I have a lot of help in what I’m doing so what shows up on my blog is actually in many instances the culmination of a lot of people’s work. I guess that’s one reason I don’t feel so bad about trying to get the word out. I’m proud of the work that is being done by so many people. That includes everyone who helps inform others of what’s really going on.
We’re a strong team all together, and hopefully growing in numbers as more information comes out.
YOu likely have a virus in you word program. You press one key and get a different letter? Its a virus.
You can get it corrected by using a good virus scan program. It also may be that a key logger surveilance virus tried to load into your PC.
You need to have the best anti virus suite you can get if you are going to stay in this business.
Both of you are amazing, Miss Tickly and ButterZillion..
I call it "Tap-Dancing" and we have a number of FR posters doing the same, but they are paid for murky he waters!!!
Are you for free speech or not???
I think Leo deserted MT and went for a more prosperous Chrysler deal???
You are amazing, too! Thanks for writing this up.
I didn’t realize you were directed to the wiki definition of Glomar response. Interesting to say the least.
Uhm, no.
I made the decision to part ways with Leo. Leo was never genuinely interested in helping me with Hawaii.
Kind of freaked me out a bit.
Somebody at my blog asked to see Takase’s explanation so just now I posted this:
“I haven’t posted Takase’s explanation. The first response she gave, before having seen the requests I had made because they were “lost”, was,
“2. Again, since I haven’t seen the request that was made or the agency’s response I can’t determine whether the response was proper. However, it sounds like you may be referring to what’s commonly known as a Glomar response. OIP has recognized that such a response may be proper under the UIPA in some circumstances. See OIP Op. Ltr. No. 07-01 at 6-7.”
The second response she gave was after she saw my question which involved this statement by the DOH: “Your request is denied in its entirety as records that would be responsive to the request, if any, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to sections 92F-13(3) and (4). ”
Her response to my query was this:
“I believe the agency response is made in the form it is because what it appears you were trying to do was verify information that would be contained on an individual’s birth certificate. The Department of Health’s position is that it is prohibited by statute from releasing any information that is contained in a birth certificate. Thus, the Department is trying to respond to a request that refers to specific information supposedly on a Department record, without actually verifying whether a record containing such information exists, because doing so would effectively disclose protected information. OIP has generally advised DOH that OIP has recognized that, what is called under federal FOIA law, a “glomar” response, which may be appropriate when merely acknowleding the existence, or nonexistence, of a particular record would reveal information protected by statute. See OIP Opinion Letter Number 07-01, which is available on our website. ”
The “if any” is used when either acknowledging the existence of a record or denying the existence of a record would disclose protected information. They had to add the “if any” because if they hadn’t, the denial of access would have been an acknowledgment of the denied record’s existence.
Just to explain a little bit here, the DOH eventually acknowledged that a doctor’s, nurse’s, or midwife’s signature submitted as proof for Obama’s AMENDED birth certificate did not exist. To the very end they have held that they could not reveal whether the same thing did or didn’t exist for his ORIGINAL birth certificate. After racking my brain and submitting other test requests I realized that there is a difference between what they can reveal from an actual birth certificate (nothing) and what they can reveal from processing documents (anything that doesn’t actually end up appearing on the certificate).
I was confused about that because Okubo’s standard response for all requests is that they can’t reveal ANYTHING from “public health statistics records”, which by statutory definition includes processing records. The seeming inconsistency in their responses between the original and amended BC’s only makes sense if they, too, acknowledge that documents other than the actual certificates only qualify for the dislosure limitations of the B section of 338-18. Okubo’s responses have always lumped those documents in as if they qualified for section A of 338-18 (no disclosure at all), which actually only applies to the actual certificates.
That’s all probably very confusing to somebody coming into this fresh and it was very confusing for me also. Okubo’s misdirection of mashing all records together as if there was no distinction between section A and section B of HRS 338-18 was probably responsible for about half of my UIPA requests. Now that I understand what the law actually means – which Okubo STILL botches every time she says anything – I have not asked for records whose very existence is protected from disclosure because it reveals content on the BC that is not authorized for disclosure by the rules or laws.
I have not – for instance – asked for records relating to Obama’s birthplace, which is not authorized for disclosure by law or by rules. And that is the one thing Fukino supposedly disclosed to the entire public without batting an eyelash. Consistent, huh?
The only authorized procedures for Fukino to reveal to the public information actually on a certificate is through index data or by a non-certified copy of an abbreviated certificate. Any other disclosures of what is actually on the certificate are forbidden by HRS 338-18(a). The disclosure Fukino made was forbidden. The disclosure she is REQUIRED to make to anybody who asks for it (the non-certified copy of an abbreviated birth certificate or COLB) and the index data that was grandfathered into public access when UIPA was passed (birth date and certificate number) she refuses to do.
People need to understand that she did what was forbidden and refuses to do what is required. Hence, the problem.”
Well, I meant that you parted ways and then he jumped on the Chrysler deal!!!
He talked a pretty good game for a while, but to me, he seemed more interested in looking like a major player instead of really getting anything accomplished. JMO. I would rather see Obama attacked over the forgery angle than the eligibility stuff. Forgery would be impeachable and harder to excuse.
I wondered why the moderators allowed Ender Wiggins to vex us as long as they did. Perhaps they felt his voluminous and incredibly irritating and repeated misstatements caused others here to rise to hieghts they otherwise might not have. Ender Wiggins, troll and talented BS artist may you Rest in Peace.
“I have not – for instance – asked for records relating to Obama’s birthplace...And that is the one thing Fukino supposedly disclosed...”
Of course she ‘disclosed’ that! It is at the very crux of this whole matter; was Obama really born in Hawaii? If she answers that in the positive, how is anyone to know if it is true since no one is allowed to see the original?
So my question to you, dear butterdezillion, is do you know if it is possible for a BC recording a foreign birth to be filed in Hawaii’s DOH as the BC of record?
As time goes by, I am more of the opinion it is not a Hawaiian birth certificate on file, but a BC reflecting a foreign birth.
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.