HI Department of Health refuses OIP’s request

THAT THEY DISCLOSE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY DEC. 21st

by John Charlton

The Webpage of the Hawaii Department of Health

(Dec. 22, 2009) — By now it is 5:00 pm in Honolulu, Hawaii. And the offices of the Department of Health are closed. So The Post & Email can go public with the fact that the Department is in open violation of Hawaii Law regarding the request made by its editor, Mr. John Charlton, on Sept. 27, 2009, and which on Dec. 8, 2009, the Office of Information Practices warned them of the violation and demanded they respond to the request by Dec. 21st.

The request I made did not regard Barack Hussein Obama’s vital records. And that is what makes Dr. Fukino’s refusal to respond to it all the more revealing.

What my request did refer to, was documentation which Hawaii Law clearly indicates must be disclosed to the public; documentation, which regards the manner in which the Department of Health conducts its public business.

The UIPA request of September 27, 2009

Here is the noxious request, that the citizen “dared” file with Janice Okubo, on Sept. 27th:

Dear Mrs. Okubo,

Aloha!

I am writing to request some information in accord with Hawaii Rev. Statutes §92F-12

Which reads:

§92F-12 Disclosure required. (a) Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:

(1) Rules of procedure, substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy, and interpretations of general applicability adopted by the agency;

(2) Final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders made in the adjudication of cases, except to the extent protected by section 92F-13(1);

The specifc information I am requesting is the following:

1. All Rules of procedure, substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy, and interpretations of general applicability adopted by the your agency, which regard the maintenance and disclosure, or non-disclosure, of original vital records, and index data for the same.

2. All final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, given by any officer, employee or by the responsible decision making entity, in your department, regarding divulging of information regarding original vital records, regarding press inquiries pertaining to original vital records, and regarding public statements made by the Director or Communications director regarding any original vital record or requests for its release made by those adjudged by the Director not to have direct personal interest in the records.

3. All Rules of procedure, substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy, and interpretations of general applicability adopted by your agency, which regard the request for any opinion sought by your office from the Hawaii Attorney General’s office regarding the observance of Hawaiian Law, and/or the observance of Federal Law, and/or the observance of the Constitutional requirements of office for those candidates on the ballot for federal offices, in Hawaii, and/or which regard any particular matter for which you might request counsel from the Hawaii Attorney General’s office.

4. All final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, given by any employee or officer, or by the responsible decision making entity, in your department, which regard the public identification of the citizenship status (whether natural born, native, statutory, or naturalized, American or foreign or otherwise), which any employee or officer in your department might make publicly or privately, in their official capacity, about anyone whose vital record is maintained by your department.

Thank you,

Sincerely,

Mr. John Charlton

OIP DEMANDS DOH TO REPLY BY DEC. 21st

On December 8th, the Office for Information Practices put the Department of Health on notice, with this letter:

Dear Ms. Okubo:

The Office of Information Practices (“OIP”) has received a request for assistance from Mr. John Charlton with respect to his request made under part II of the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) (“UIPA”), for access to documents pertaining to operations and procedures. Mr. Charlton has indicated that he made a written request to the Department of Health (“DOH”) dated September 27, 2009, and that he has not yet received a response from DOH. Copies of Mr. Charlton’s request to OIP and his record request to the DOH are enclosed for your information.

Under OIP’s administrative rules, an agency must respond to a written UIPA request for access to government records within a reasonable time, not to exceed ten business days. Haw. Admin. R § 2-71-13 (1999). Given the length of time since Mr. Charlton’s request, please provide the required response to Mr. Charlton within that same time frame. Id.: Haw. Admin. R. §§ 2-71-14, 2-71-15 (1999). Specifically, if denying access, DOH should (1) specify the record, or parts, that will not be disclosed; and (2) cite the agency’s specific legal authorities under which access is denied under section 92-F-13, HRS,* and other laws. Haw. Admin. R § 2-71-14. Please also provide OIP with notice of the action taken by the agency.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require assitance.

Very truly yours,

Linden H. Joesting
Staff Attorney

—————

* The UIPA also provides generally that where compliance with any provision of UIPA would cause an agency to lose or be denied funding or other assistance from the federal government, compliance with that provision shall be waived but only to the extent necessary to protect eligibility for such federal assistance. Haw. Rev. Stat. §92F-4 (1993).

Ms. Jancie Okubo has completely ignored this letter, since I have not received any reply from her office within the 10 days specified.

You can examine for yourselves the importance of my request; and speculate why the Department of Health has consistently refused to respond to something so patently legal and proper.

In addition, note the footnote which Attorney Joesting added to her letter. It seems to indicate that she has spoken with Okubo before, and that Okubo is denying my UIPA request because she fears a backlash from the White House.

They cannot deny the request I made, because it would have no supporting legal authority. They cannot grant it, if they are hiding something untoward, which in granting it, would be revealed; and which in being revealed, would cause Obama’s tyrannical rage to pour forth its venom against the Hawaii Department of Health’s future budget’s bottom line.

Continued silence in this matter only indicts Dr. Fukino and Janice Okubo in conspiracy to obviate their legal responsibilities. If they are being threatened by the White House, they need to come clean. If the documents show Obama is a liar, they need to come clean. If the documents I requested show that they have not been straightforward with the American Public, they need to realize that releasing them will make lighter any future punishment a court will impose.

Print Friendly

33 Responses to "HI Department of Health refuses OIP’s request"

  1. Pingback: His name is “Steve Dunham”! | The Post & Email | The Ruthless Truth blog

  2. ksdb   Saturday, December 26, 2009 at 4:24 PM

    Epi, on that 1982 law, I don’t think that the law made it possible for the registration of foreign births. The state already provided the opportunity for foreign births, especially through adoption. The only thing the 1982 law did was establish a residency requirement that didn’t exist prior to that. If it created a totally new category of birth registrations, then you expect to see more rules attached than residency.

  3. ksdb   Saturday, December 26, 2009 at 1:34 AM

    I know they’ve responded to the index data requests by asking for a name (which defeats the purpose), but have not seen a response that cited an inability to find the index data or a policy that prevents them from obtaining it from other search criteria. The law on index data is designed to make basic information available to the public without releasing hard copies of vital records. That certificate number is part of the same database used to generate COLBs, so there’s no physical reason they can’t provide the data associated with the number. If it’s Obama’s legitimate certificate number, this would be an easy, legal way for them to confirm Obama’s birth records as legitimate. Refusing indicates the certificate number probably belongs to someone other than Obama.

  4. ksdb   Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 10:19 PM

    The Fact Check photographs didn’t appear until the HI DOH spokesbabe publicly said they couldn’t divulge ANY information about the birth certificates. Up until that time, Obama’s people were obviously worried that someone could check the authenticity of the COLB by way of that certificate number. As soon as Okubo said they couldn’t (which is false), then they felt safe to reveal a certificate number, one that most likely belongs to someone else other than Obama.

  5. epicurious   Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 3:19 PM

    DoH will not release index data based on the certificate number only. The requester must provide a name. The hard copy of the index data available for inspection at the DoH may or may not include the certificate number. This has not been confirmed one way or the other.

  6. yo   Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 12:20 PM

    The fact that the cert number of the colb is blacked out looks a whole lot more suspicious now than it did when factcheck gave their lame excuse as to why it was blacked out.

    Perhaps they all knew the escape hatch it would give the hawaii doh down the line when people started looking into his birth facts.

  7. ksdb   Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 10:51 AM

    Did anyone have an outstanding index data request per the Certificate no. listed on the Fact Check COLB?? That’s the one piece of evidence that could prove fraud was committed. The failure, no, refusal to comply with that request is very telling.

  8. Kathy   Wednesday, December 23, 2009 at 9:22 PM

    John….I’m just thinking out loud….Is it possible for this to be come some sort of class action suit in lieu of Hawaii posting on their website of denial of information? It would be hard for them to deny the public need or right to know if they had a million plaintiffs like the pink slips which were sent to congress.

  9. John Charlton   Wednesday, December 23, 2009 at 7:20 PM

    OK, folks, here it is, the legal fund is established…

    http://www.thepostemail.com/legal-fund/

  10. yo   Wednesday, December 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM

    As I read haw revised statute 338-16, it certainly looks to me like it’s saying “filed” means with the Haw doh, and “accepted” would mean with the state registrar.
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0016.htm

    Also, someone has done another interesting little analysis at
    http://crisericson2010.blogspot.com/2009/12/military-law-review-questions-for.html

  11. JeanWTPUSA   Wednesday, December 23, 2009 at 2:57 AM

    Obama Extends Diplomatic Immunity to Interpol by Executive Order
    http://www.newmediajournal.us/the_fifth_column/12222009.htm

    Maybe Interpol has information on B.O’s BC?

  12. JeanWTPUSA   Wednesday, December 23, 2009 at 2:50 AM

    Is there anyway you can have your attorneys put the Hawaiian DOH on notice ….

    ——————-

    Mr. Charlton replies: Woah! I have only contacted some attorneys; no one has been retained, let alone has any action been planned. We’ll see how much support there is for this, when the legal fund is set up in the next week or so.

    You guys that are eager will be expected to help get donors; none of us here at The Post & Email, and none of the prospective “plaintiffs” are wealthy…this will have to be a citizen, grass root action….so wait for the annoucment and then help out…in the means time zip the lips, and don’t give the opposition any ideas…what you wrote was very imprudent…so I clipped it..

  13. Texoma Ed   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 11:44 PM

    Reply to Nellie (I don’t see a reply button under your reply to me): So, if Obama was adopted, then would that not explain the lack of amendments noted on his COLB? He could really have been born in Hawaii, and it is his adoption that he is hiding. Now, some would say that being born in Hawaii would then make him a natural born citizen, but I beg to differ. His citizenship at birth was believed to be split between Britain (and Kenya) and the US due to Obama Senior being the father of record and Ann Dunham the mother of record. This being the case, we cannot change Obama’s history of foreign influence and split allegiances at “birth” (based upon his new birth certificate, issued at his adoption).

    It is this foreign influence that makes him ineligible to be President. The natural born citizen requirement was a means to an end, and that end was to have presidents with 100% allegiance to the US. Just being a natural born citizen was not enough for our Founding Fathers, and this is evidenced by the 14-year residency requirement. Our Founding Fathers understood that foreign influence comes not just from birthplace or birth parents, but also from having lived in foreign countries.

  14. James H. Roberson   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 11:29 PM

    Mr. Charlton:

    Bravo, Kudos, Brilliant, and Well Done !!!
    Methinks these poor DoH foxes now have too many hounds on their tails, and won’t get away. Tally Ho !!!

    Feel free to include me as a abused citizen / complainant — outraged at their criminal acts of conspiracy, fraud, and flagrant violation of the UIPA. If, like me, Fukino / Okubo ever swore to “… Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States…”, then, they have clearly perjured themselves (my opinion). Like you, I asked for a Record that clearly exists (identification of their written routine operating procedures); Like you, I identified NO person (therefore no personal or private information was involved); and, Like you, I used so many examples that DoH could NOT properly claim that they “needed more information to identify the Record” sought (which they did anyway). Please refer to your following “link”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/11/28/hi-dept-of-health-admits-obamas-colb-is-faked/

    That was my email. Please let me know how I can help. Been deposed 3 times in lawsuits, as a witness. So, been there – done that.

    My sole income is a modest Social Security check. Otherwise, my contributions would be more.

    ————-

    Mr. Roberson, please use the contact form, because I will lose your contact info in the comments section, we get so many comments here…just cut and past this entire comment of yours and send it to me with your email and name, and I will put you on our list of possible plaintiffs…

    God’s Speed

  15. A pen   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 10:46 PM

    Nellie hit the nail on the head. The fact an amended cert would exist and would be made in the form of a COLB, the original being sealed to protect the parents rights not the childs, which should one be verifiable it should indicate what we already know, the father of record would be Lolo not Barack Sr. If I am not mistaken there is proof of fraud in this set of facts.

    You must have read Judge Carters ( Sidarth Velamoors , of Perkins Coie, dismissal). You must know that you will not be allowed to place any facts in front of a jury or at the very least, have a judge advertise to the administration for months in advance that a hearing will commence if they don’t send someone to take the fall. Not to mention the obvious explanation that any hearing would result in decapitation and fallout so massive that there would be no one constitutionally provided for to sit as president until one can be elected. That this danger is to be avoided by simply not allowing justice to move ahead. It is preposterous to state it is better to live in jeopardy than to follow the law no matter where it takes us. I do believe that was part of the opinion of Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison.

    Also “Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.

    If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.”

    We are well into that “crime”

  16. 12th Generation AMERICAN   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 6:26 PM

    Ms. Okubo is probably waiting for the Obama’s to arrive for their Christmas “vacation/boondoggle” in Hawaii and ask for further instructions!?!? Merry Christmas and enjoy your lump of coal Harry Reid has waiting for all of us.

  17. epicurious   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 5:10 PM

    The DoH claims it does not to have index data in in other words, a certificate for Barry Soetoro, or Barack Soetoro. While I have not made any direct requests for O’s records, I know of no positive response coming from the DoH other than “no records are responsive to your request.” I am implying that there is or was index data but it has likely been sealed.

    Okubo responded to one of my requests yesterday, I now know that SAD and Lolo at least applied for a marriage license in HI which in all likelihood resulted in a marriage since there are divorce records. Same for SAD and BHO. I replied to Okubo and asked for clarification I can determine if marriage index data is based on a application for a license or a marriage certificate issued after the ceremony. Licenses are only good for 30 days, so I assume the latter applies.

    I believe Lolo adopted O shortly thereafter but have no evidence to corroborate my suspicion. It is the only scenario that makes sense to me given the birth announcements and the shroud of secrecy regarding his school and passport records. To me it just further componds the NBC issue. Not only was his daddy not a US citizen, neither was his step or adoptive daddy. Both were in the US on student visas, not even permanent residents.

    There is the outside chance that he was born outside of Hawaii but that would be the mother of all cover ups, one I am not sure even the DoH is capable of. I know about the 1982 law that provided for foreign births registrations in HI but I assume that the original place of birth would still appear on the certificate. It could not be considered as prima facie otherwise.

  18. SapphireSunday   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 4:33 PM

    It defies common sense for them to claim that there are no instructions for how to key enter vital records into their database. Does anyone know how and when that database was created? Did they use optical scanning software? If not, there had to have been a huge data entry project to key enter the data from all those records. If so, there were guidelines for the data entry operators. There would also be programming specifications for the printing of the COLBs. Those specifications would indicate under what conditions “date filed by” versus “date accepted by” is printed on a COLB. All of this should be public record because taxpayer money, perhaps even federal taxpayer money, was used to pay for the project.

    Is there any nexus between the pressure on the DoH and Neil Abercrombie’s sudden decision to resign from Congress and run for governor of Hawaii? Remember that Abercrombie is a personal friend of Obama’s since college. He was involved with that infamous letter to Kapiolani Hospital, citing it as Obama’s birth place, which nobody will now acknowledge as true.

  19. Joe The Blogger   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 4:03 PM

    Message understood. Now let’s get those lying, stonewalling crooks in Hawai’i.

  20. epicurious   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 11:59 AM

    Great work!

    I wish I could get an OIP letter like that; the OIP or at least Acting Director Takase is in collusion with the DoH. My request for assistance have yet to yield anything to my knowledge other than index data for SAD and non responses which I interpret as the same as a denial. Other than an acknowledgement, the OIP has never formally or directly responded so I have no idea if it has intervened on my behalf or not. The DoH’s standard “Not required to create or compile information” is not a legitmate response for standard operating procedures the DoH obviously uses on a daily basis in discharge of its functions.

    If a suit is to be filed it should be noted that plaintiffs need to notify the OIP in writing of their intent. I would not at this point do anything until directed by legal representation.

    Also, there are two other ways to amend a certificate w/o it resulting as being identified as “altered”. Legitimation and paternity determination both of which require an affidavit from the father. Any other amendment must be noted on the face of the certificate and documentary evidence requirements must be met.

    Even though the DoH has stated that it does not have index data for Barack or Barry Soetoro [Editor: Epi, what did you just say here, don’t you mean just the opposite?], I believe that it is quite possible that O’ was adopted, his certificate was supplemented as a result, and the supplementary certificate still lists Soetoro as the father and quite possibly O’s last name as Soetoro. If readers recall, the Soetoro divorce decree identified two children in the divorce, one under 18 and one over. Why would the decree list a stepchild over 18? If he was adopted, it explains a lot in regard how O’ was able to attend school in Indonesia, and in all likelihood obtain an Indonesian passport, travel to Pakistan in 1981, etc, and why he will not release his college records. If he did, it would show he attended Occidental and possibly Columbia as a foreign student who received foreign student financial aid. In short, the DoH may lying when it states it does not have index data for Barry or Barack Soetoro.

    If O changed his last name back to Obama, it would be noted as an amendment on the certificate face and Soetoro would still be listed as the father. Also, you must submit an order from the Lt. Governor or competent court to the DoH authorizing the name change before the DoH will amend the certificate. The only thing that is unclear is how certificates are handled if an adoption is set aside; it is the only way that O’ could have possibly restored his original certificate. I am not sure that the adoption set aside is considered be an amendment of itself and if it would be noted on the certificate.

    Everyone needs to wallpaper blogosphere with the link to this article.

  21. Joe The Blogger   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM

    John,

    I was really hoping that you would have answered with a straight “NO”. Phil Berg and Gary Kreep have steadfastly refused to acknowledge the definition of ‘natural born Citizen’, as being born in The USA to two parents, who were both citizens of The USA at the time of the child’s birth. Consequently, I believe the Obots and The White House would rejoice at the thought of Berg’s and Kreep’s involvement in this. Berg and Kreep are widely distrusted in the ‘eligibility movement’. I’m sure that many of your readers would have wondered if these are the two lawyers to which you referred. To encourage maximum participation in your initiative, which I support, I think that it would be very helpful to rule out Berg and Kreep as your Counsel.

    Obviously, I do not expect you to publish this comment, but I have no objection if you choose to do so.

    —————

    Mr. Charlton replies: Don’t waste your time speculating, when counsel is chosen, it will be publicly known in the filings. You know me better than that, no?

  22. Kathy   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 10:23 AM

    I contaced Norton about the issue of your site being flagged with a ? mark. This is their reply.

    The above website you have mentioned is under the inspection by the Norton safe web and would be shortly approved if the site is a genuine site.

    After the checking is thorughly completed then the green check would be appearing beside the website.

    ————-

    Mr. Charlton replies: Please give them a piece of your mind, and mine as well!

    Unfortunately, after we started operating, someone let us know that there a infamous site of spammers which has a similar name, differing only by one letter….a stupid computer could not notice….Norton is evidenty run but such…

  23. Kathy   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 9:48 AM

    It looks to me like they have been threatened by the White House. It sounds a little like the situation with the base in Nebraska. Great work. I’m so happy that maybe someone will file a suit. Setup the fund. People will help. Thanks for being a Patriot!

    ————-

    Mr. Charlton replies I hope to have it set up by Christmas Eve, or at least before New Year’s Day…it will depend on YOU the readers, once it is, to get the word out, on blogs, fora, bullentin boards, and everywhere…”Let’s sue the HI Department of Health to solve once for all the mystery of Obama’s origins”!

  24. yo   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 8:25 AM

    This is really good news. I’m so glad you’re on the case.

    I don’t put anything past the haw doh and the obama administration, including destroying and/or manufacturing records to cover the whole thing up, but with perseverance and a little luck, hopefully you’ll get to the bottom of this whole thing.

    Bravo!

  25. Joe The Blogger   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 5:56 AM

    “I have already contacted 2 lawyers and will seek counsel on how to proceed”.

    John,

    Would one of the two lawyers that you have contacted be Phil Berg?

    Would one of the two lawyers that you have contacted be Gary Kreep?

    ————-

    Mr. Charlton replies: I am obviously not going to comment about such matters or legal strategy in public. We’ve see that does not work. Obots and even the White House read The Post & Email.

    So don’t ask in the future, because I will not permit such comments.

  26. Nellie   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 3:05 AM

    The best thing they could do at this point is to try to come clean and to plead that they were threatened into cooperating. Which I actually believe is probably the case. I’ve asked to see any records of the communications with Obama that Okubo mentioned in a press interview in 2008 but so far I can’t even get the DOH to acknowledge that they’ve received my request. They’re hoping it will just go away – like they’ve done with every request they don’t want to have to answer.

    I’m encouraged to see that Joesting assumed that if Mr. Charlton had record of sending the e-mail, then the DOH must have received it as well. I and several colleagues have had several instances where we sent in requests and waited the required time for a response, only to be told that our e-mails had been “lost”. Sounds like at least Joesting isn’t taking that kind of garbage as an excuse.

  27. Nellie   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 2:55 AM

    But whatever they produce needs to fit what they’ve already told us – that there was an amendment to his record, that they have no affidavits, evidence, or (specifically) doctor’s, midwife’s, or nurse’s signatures submitted to amend his date, time, or place of birth or his mother’s race, no application to amend a COHB (which they had previously seemed to say he had – unless they had executed a VERY poor attempt at a Glomar response (“if any” type response, except this one said that “verification” wasn’t authorized – even though nobody asked for verification of anything). I need to look more closely at the evidentiary requirements for amendments.

    And the thing of it is that only non-adoption amendments would be visible as amendments on a birth certificate, since amendments due to adoption result in a totally new birth certificate being created and the original one being sealed. So for the DOH to know there was an amendment, that amendment would have to be noted on the certificate. The Factcheck and Fight the Smears COLB’s cannot be authentic because they lack note of the amendment that the DOH has already acknowledged happened. So the DOH has indirectly confirmed that both Factcheck and FTS COLB’s are forgeries. Forgeries that Cathy Takase at the OIP knows about and hasn’t reported (and hasn’t said whether she is required to report it to law enforcement). Nor has the DOH reported it to law enforcement, apparently – since they gave public support to the online COLB’s even when they knew they were forgeries.

    So basically what I’m saying is that there is already so much evidence of both forgery and DOH and OIP abetting of forgery, as well as statements given by the DOH which don’t jive with a clean, valid birth certificate that Obama would try to produce. The evidence of foul play and of legal problems with his birth certificate are already out there. There is evidence, now, that the DOH is destroying the record of the information they’ve already given. There is really, really rotten stuff going on. But since the evidence exists independently of the DOH, their destruction of the record only makes it clear that they are trying to obstruct justice also. Every step they make to try to cover this whole story up only digs them deeper into legal quicksand. And it’s all being documented.

  28. Nellie   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 2:35 AM

    The brilliance in this is that you were assigned to Linden Joesting. If you had requested something regarding a vital record you would have automatically been assigned to Cathy Takase and would have received no help at all. She’s the one who volunteered to do everything regarding vital records requests – advise Okubo how to answer, judge whether she answered correctly, and (after Tsukiyama resigned and verbally asked her to act as director), give final approval for her opinion on whether she counseled Okubo to give the right answer.

    Something else that should be known. The DOH is saying they are so inundated that they just don’t have time to deal with requests. I sent in a request for all UIPA responses sent out by Okubo in the last 10 business days. I got a response today; in 10 business days she sent out 7 responses – all denials of things she is required by law to give and at least one citing law incorrectly. The 2 weeks extended from Nov 28-Dec 10, and the only responses she sent out were on Dec 10th. So during the time that she was not answering your request, Mr. Charlton, she was NOT being kept from doing so because of a large volume of these requests that she was responding to. Nor were there any furlough days during those 2 weeks. She is not responding because she doesn’t want to.

    Today she also tried to tell me that they have no records regarding how written certificates are to be keyed in as electronic records or any information on when to enter a “void flag” or what impact a void flag has when a records request is made in the EVVE system or how a void flag shows up on a COLB. I responded by requesting more specific sources of information, such as the winning bid for the software, software title and version, training manuals and reference materials, communications to and from Alvin Onaka regarding the conversion to electronic records, and any documents which name the data entry workers who keyed in the conversions. She put her e-mail on auto-response after that, which said she would respond to my e-mail when she gets back to the office on January 4th.

    I also let her know that I have seen the data entry guides published by the CDC for the vital records system they recommend the states use, and know that such instructions exist and in no way threaten the security of the system – just as public knowledge of a certificate number doesn’t threaten the security of the system, as Factcheck actually acknowledged shortly after Okubo had given a public interview gushing about how important it was for Obama to black out the cert number because it would threaten their system security if anybody knew it (even though they include a cert number on every certificate they send out, without worrying about their system being hacked as a result). Information which would compromise system security is not required to be disclosed, but what any of us are asking for doesn’t even come close to qualifying for that exemption from UIPA disclosure.

    Is there any chance that a lawsuit could incorporate some of the other requests that they have been illegally denying – such as a request for a non-certified abbreviated copy of Obama’s birth certificate?

    —————-

    Mr. Charlton replies: Look, if one sues, onen goes for the kit-an-kabuttle; that is every piece of information or documentation which was requested, and can be lawfullly divulged, but which was not divulged. Anything, everything. Not just information which directly addresses the BC. That way the suit will be a make or break. We need to open up the floodgates and uphold the Sunshine Provisions of the HI laws.

  29. John Charlton   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 1:00 AM

    My thoughts on a Law Suit are as follows:

    Those who have made UIPA requests and were refused, need to contact me (use contact form at top of page), and give me details on kind of request you made, and which part of Hawaii Law or Administative Rules you believe grants you the right to have your request heard.

    Second, I will set up legal fund, and ask all interested citizens to send a donation and publicize its existence.

    Third, I have already contacted 2 lawyers and will seek counsel on how to proceed. We want the info disclosed, that the prime objective.

    Fourth, I have 2 projects in the works to get Obama’s BC and other personal information. So stay tunned.

    Let’s not give up the fight, but let’s fight all the more forcefullly!

  30. DABIGRAGU   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 12:22 AM

    I’m in Mr. Charlton.

  31. Texoma Ed   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 12:16 AM

    I think they will lose. But I still think that the most powerful man on the planet will be able to “produce” a piece of paper to give to the Hawaii DOH showing a Hawaiian birth. On the other hand, the document that Obama cannot produce is the one showing that Obama Senior (his legal father) was a US citizen.

  32. Troy   Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 12:00 AM

    Bravo, Mr. Charlton….Well done!….I think that Leo and Terri K, both, will be impressed with your method….I know that I am….A suit filed is long past due….I hope that you will be in a position to see it through….Keep up the fine work here, as we all appreciate what you do….Thanks!

  33. throwshoesatobama   Monday, December 21, 2009 at 11:38 PM

    It seems that you have them cornered. If they answer your request then people will gain guidance as to the way to cull information from them. If they answer incorrectly they open themselves up to litigation and/or criminal charges. My theory is they are gambling that you do not have the funds or the time to take them to court therefore making your request moot.

    ——————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: If they want to make that gamble, they are going to lose. Because I will set up a legal fund, and sue them; maybe even do a class action suit on behalf of all those whose request have gone unanswered…

    What do you folks think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.