HI Department of Health Publicly rebuffs inquiries for Obama’s vital records

DOSSIER OF EXCUSES APPEARS ON WEB IN LAST 6 HOURS?

by John Charlton

The dossier page, on Obama, which appeared recently on the Hawaii Department of Health's website.
The dossier page, on Obama, which appeared recently on the Hawaii Department of Health’s website.

(Dec. 18, 2009) — The Hawaii Department of Health has just published a dossier of excuses to rebuff public inquiry into the vital records of Barack Hussein Obama, which the Office of Health Status Monitoring alleges to maintain.

The new web page appears at http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

When did this dossier appear?

The dossier page is linked to, from the main page on Vital Records, which begins thus

About Vital Records

Vital records (birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates) for events that occurred in Hawaii are received and preserved by the Office of Health Status Monitoring, a unit of the Department of Health. In Hawaii, access to vital records is restricted by statute (HRS §338-18).

Frequently Asked Questions About Vital Records of President Barack Hussein Obama II

The entry for the dossier as a FAQ, appears in a text which has no reference to it, thus indicating that the modification was done abruptly without much planning or forethought about layout considerations.  This argues that it was done recently and by direct intervention of Dr. Fukino, the director of the Department of Health.

When this last page was altered and this new page appeared is not certain.  Citizen-researchers did not notice them yesterday, and they were discovered only in the last 3 hours.  Google as of the writing of this article at 5:00 PM ET, did not contain any links to the dossier page, nor any text from it in their engine.  This seems to corroborate that the page appeared in the last 6 hours or so, since the obama.html page contains links to google analytics, Google’s search engine should be aware of its existence.

Reaction to the dossier’s appearance

What the dossier contains is evident enough to anyone, as it can be read on line.

The two significant documents, which are handy to have on file, are the links to the PDF files of the 2 statements made by Dr. Fukino about Obama’s alleged vital records.

What the dossier reveals is evident from an inspection of its contents.  But what is said and not said shows how the Department of Health is responding to the “crisis” of public inquiry regarding Obama’s alleged vital records.

I just interviewed by email, one citizen-investigator who has been watching the Department of Health for the last 2 months.  She had this to say about the dossier’s appearance:

My overall observation is it is an attempt by the DoH to deter citizens from making requests for Obama’s birth records and for government records the agency uses in its discharge of its functions.

The DoH Rules and Regulations: The DoH is denying access to anything other than the Public Health Regulations Chap 8, 8A and 8B.  I have made multiple UIPA requests for the government record that defines the application of “Date Accepted By Registrar” and “Date Filed By Registrar” on the COLB. Communications Director Okubo has responded by directing me to the PHR Chapter 8 which does not include how the aforementioned is defined and applied. In follow-up correspondence, Ms. Okubo stated that the DoH is not required to create or compile such information.

UIPA law HRS 92F-3 states: “Government record” means information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical form.”  The definition and application of the “accepted” and  “filed” terminology exists somewhere; it is not applied to the COLB arbitrarily.

The DoH is continuing to refuse to disclose the definitive and legal basis of the Director Fukino’s July 27, 2009 statement.  After this statement was released, blogger Justin Riggs wrote the DoH to inquire about the information and records that were used to make the statement. Ms. Okubo responded: “The statement was approved by Attorney General Mark Bennett.” All other attempts to obtain this information have been rebuffed citing “attorney-client privilege.”

According to the Office of Information Practices Opinion Letter 91-23, an agency must disclose the attorney-client communication in it is entirety if any portion of the communication is disclosed to the public. It cannot selectively choose what to disclose and what not to. The DoH revealed the AG had approved the statement which constitutes a partial disclosure.

The DoH appears to be charging $7.50 per record search for records it had until now provided free of charge.

The Post & Email’s analysis of the dossier

First, the dossier makes a point to name Barack Hussein Obama II, “President.”

Second, the dossier omits mentioning the Hawaii Statute which allows the Department of Health to release vital records to the public, when sufficient public interest warrants it.

Third, the dossier publishes the index records for Obama, which are allegedly extracted from the vital record which the Department alleges to maintain on file.

Fourth, the dossier mentions laws which have no direct bearing on Obama’s birth story, unless they apply to him:

http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/admrules/default.aspx

These records consist of:
Public Health Regulations Chapter 8 (Vital Records Regulations and  Records)
Public Health Regulations Chapter 8A (Delayed Birth Registration)
Public Health Regulations Chapter 8B (Vital Statistics Regulations and Records)
Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11 Department of Health Chapter 120 (Foreign Born Persons Adopted in Hawaii)
Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11 Department of Health Chapter 123 (Names of Natural Parents in Birth Certificate of Adopted Person)

Is the Department of Health saying that Obama was foreign-born or adopted? It is not clear.

The link provided does not contain only the above mentioned rules, it contains all of the Department of Health’s administrative rules.  Why, then, mention the rules regarding foreign births and adoptions?

Is this merely to respond to the doubts of citizens on these questions?

The Department of Health evidently is sensitive to the ongoing inquiries.  Note how they phrase the mention of the 2 public statements in the dossier:

3.    All past statements by the Health Director are available at:

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

The statements speak for themselves and there are no other public records maintained by the department related to these statements that are available to the public.

They are publicly denying that records which they have regarding the preparation, approval, or filing of the 2 public statements, are themselves available to the public.

This is in direct contravention of Hawaii Statute §92F-12 which requires all associated or supporting documents to be made public: such as memos, emails, memoranda, etc., which were produced prior to or after the release of such statements.  That statute 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: …

(15)  Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public; and

What the Department of Hawaii does not say in the dossier, also seems to be significant.  Notice how they present the Index Data information:

The index data regarding President Obama is:

Birth Index
Obama II, Barack Hussein
Male

Index data should include the date of birth, but the dossier omits the date of birth.  This is both revealing and troubling.  Evidently the Department will not confirm publicly that Obama was born on the date he claims:  Aug. 4, 1961.  Index data should also include the type of event.  The event is not named.  It should be named “birth” if it was a real birth.  Is it an adoption, which caused an entry into the Birth Index?

The dossier repeats, at the top of its page, the reasons why the Department does not want to be responsive to citizens’ inquiries, nor responsible to the nation regarding shedding light on the veracity or mendacity of Obama’s birth-story claims:

The State’s public records law, the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) (“UIPA”), found at chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) requires that all government records be open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law.  Government records means information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical form, see HRS §92F-3.  The UIPA does not require an agency to provide access to government records that state law protects from disclosure, see, HRS §92F-13 (4), nor does it require agencies to respond to all questions asked of the agency.

Unless a request for DOH records is specific enough to be understood, the request cannot be responded to by the DOH.

The DOH may not have a record which is responsive to a request. The UIPA does not require an agency to compile or create information to respond to a request.

State law prohibits the DOH from disclosing any vital statistics records or information contained in such records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record, or as otherwise allowed by statute or administrative rule.  See HRS §338-18.  Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b).

The Post & Email has extensively covered the story of the Hawaii Department of Health’s refusal to release Obama’s vital records.  For more information about this, click on the tags to this report, at the bottom of the article.

15 Responses to "HI Department of Health Publicly rebuffs inquiries for Obama’s vital records"

  1. Kathy   Monday, December 21, 2009 at 9:17 AM

    My filtering is set to medium. I don’t think it’s Nortion, because they should give me an alert message. I’m not sure though. Below, I have attached some of the links that show up with a ? after them. Earlier, I got the ? when finding your link to your article “HI Department of Health Publicly rebuffs inquiries for Obama’s vital records”. Now when I google for this title, your site does not even show up. It looks like funny business to me.

    NH Rep. Rappaport Requests Investigation of Obama’s Eligibility …
    thepostnemail.wordpress.com/…/nh-rep-rappaport-requests-investigation-of-obamas-eligibility/Rasmussen polls indicate Orange Revolution by July 2011

    Nov 24, 2009 … PUBLIC’S GROWING IRE AND MELTING SUPORT FOREBODE DIRE END TO OBAMA REGIME. by John Charlton. (Nov. 29, 2009) — The latest Presidential …
    thepostnemail.wordpress.com/ – Cached

    Taitz Files Emergency Stay and Motion for Rehearing – The Post & Email
    thepostnemail.wordpress.com/…/taitz-files-emergency-stay-and-motion-for-rehearing/ – Similar

    White House orders attack on Washington Times | The Post & Email
    Dec 3, 2009 … KERCHNER ADVERTORIAL SPARKS VICIOUS RACE-POLITICS ACTION SIMULTANEOUS

    HACKER-ATTACK OF THE POST & EMAIL BY OBAMA SUPPORTER by John Charlton, …
    http://www.thepostemail.com/…/white-house-orders-attack-on-washington-times/ – CachedDonofrio confirms Chrysler-Dealers’ lawsuit | The Post & Email

    Dec 7, 2009 … WITH ATTORNEY STEVEN PIDGEON, FILES QUO WARRANTO ACTION IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA by John Charlton (Dec. 7, 2009) — The Post & Email can …
    http://www.thepostemail.com/…/donofrio-confirms-chrysler-dealers-lawsuit/ – Cached

    Federal Court requested to investigate AP Story «
    Oct 25, 2009 … (Oct. 25, 2009) — Eleven days ago The Post & Email published its story about the East African Standard report in 2004 naming Obama …
    thepostnemail.wordpress.com/…/federal-court-requested-to-investigate-ap-story/ – Cached

    —————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: All these appear in google when I search for them under their titles.

    Also, all searches for –The Post & Email — and –“The Post & Email”– also turn up our site, numerous times.

    I believe your problem might be in your browser or pc. Have you tried erasing (dumping) your browser’s cache? and then revisiting google?

  2. Kathy   Monday, December 21, 2009 at 5:49 AM

    John, you should google your site. Many of your articles are comming up with ?????s. I use Norton.

    ——————

    Mr. Charlton replies: I see no problems on any of my links at Google.com.

    The problem may be that you have set your filtering options on searches at Google to a high level. Go back to google and check your filter options. When set to medium filtering or no filtering, no problem shows.

    If that is not the issue, and you have norton support, I’d appreciate it if you could get on the phone with them and ask, why the problem is occuring on your computer. And please let me know what they say. If I can do anything about it, I will, because I want the site visible by all.

  3. Texomaed   Sunday, December 20, 2009 at 11:20 PM

    It is both irrelevant and relevant. Irrelevant for the precise reason you gave. Relevant for its distraction from the fact of Obama’s dual citizenship – a fact which alone makes him not a natural born citizen and ineligible to be President.

    The birth certificate cannot prove Obama’s eligibility, it can only further disprove it should it show a foreign birth. But if required to reveal his birth certificate, do we really think that the most powerful man on the planet will be unable to “produce” a piece of paper showing a Hawaiian birth? On the other hand, there exists no document that will show Obama Senior (Obama’s legal father) to be a US citizen.

  4. Kathy   Sunday, December 20, 2009 at 9:23 PM

    John, I did not no if you had seen these or not.

    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20091219/NEWS01/91219001

    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20091216/NEWS01/912160333/Hawaii-governor-opposes-Akaka-bill-revisions

    http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20091217/BREAKING06/91217054?source=rss_breaking

    ——————

    Mr. Charlton replies: Thanks for the links. We can see from these how politically charged the relationship between HI and the White House is: the complaints however are not about a Senate version which does not give them what they want, but about a version which does not give them all of what they want.

    Obama’s promise to the HI estasblishment to give them all of what they want, seems to have such importance to them, that perhaps hiding his vital records has something to do about this.

  5. ksdb   Sunday, December 20, 2009 at 1:11 AM

    If the DOH has to put a Web page together like this, then they are admitting that there is a legitimate public interest in whatever vital records are on file for Obama or his aliases. Their own state law says public interest outweighs privacy … plus Obama is the most public figure in the world. He has no assumed right of privacy.

  6. IceTrey   Saturday, December 19, 2009 at 4:28 PM

    This is all irrelevant. Obama has already publicly admitted that he was a British citizen at birth. This is all the information that is needed to determine that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to be the POTUS.

    ——————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: Its is not pertinent directly to the NBC issue or his eligiblity; correct. But is its relevant to the large issue of convincing the general public to remove him from office. I don’t believe that he could be impeached, because I don’t recognize him as holding the office legitimately; but if Congress moves to impeach him after the 2010 elections, then I’m all for it.

  7. Johnnyroten   Saturday, December 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM

    just boycott HI until they give full disclosure………if anthing gets them to act, a boycott will, the citizens of HI will demand the release :)

  8. Deuce   Saturday, December 19, 2009 at 12:42 PM

    It’s obvious that the DoH in Hawaii will stonewall this thing as long as they can. Fukino has said that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born citizen. Now that she has gone public with this information it becomes part of the public domain, but they still want to maintain secrecy. It’s time for someone to hit these coconut heads in Hawaii with a lawsuit.

  9. John Galt   Saturday, December 19, 2009 at 10:33 AM

    Who Is Behind Quashing the Birth Certificate Issue?
    By Joan Swirsky Tuesday, August 25, 2009

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14089

  10. yo   Saturday, December 19, 2009 at 9:15 AM

    I go back to a comment that someone made a few weeks ago. They said “where are the lawyers?”

    There are undoubtedly lawyers in Hawaii that have such extensive experience in this field that they would could, without hesitation, inform us of what ‘filed vs accepted’ means.

    And there must be lawyers who have dealt with oip that would know how to use the disclosure laws to find out things quickly.

    Are they all, the whole lot of them, so scared of never doing another piece of business in Hawaii that they’re all collectively keeping their mouths tightly shut?

    We’re but one step from Stalinist Russia, folks.

  11. Lizard   Saturday, December 19, 2009 at 2:34 AM

    epicurious,

    I requested an “uncertifed” / abbreviated copy of the birth certificate per Rule 2.5B(2) that you cite, and the response I got back from the DOH was “denied” based on the nondisclosure rules of HRS 338-18. I responded and pointed out that the nondisclosure rules of 338-18 were subject to their rulemaking authority, but I got a parrott-like response that no information about a vital record could be disclosed to someone other than a person with a direct and tangible interest.

    Interestingly enough, I did some research and found that at least Wisconsin and North Carolina allow any person to request an “uncertified” copy of a birth certificate. It seems like Hawaii must have allowed this at some point, but their position now is clearly that they aren’t going to provide an “uncertified” copy to anyone, despite their rules. /Lizard

  12. Lizard   Saturday, December 19, 2009 at 12:46 AM

    John,

    You mention above that: “Index data should include the date of birth, but the dossier omits the date of birth.” However, HRS 338-18(d) limits the “index data” to “name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.” Thus, there is nothing specifically mentioned about “date” which is why the DOH is giving as little information as possible. In other words, they can if they want to, but they won’t.

    What is interesting in the DOH’s new FAQ in No. 2, where they specifically address the request for index data. The specific quote from the FAQ is: “Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, and type of event is made available to the public. The director, in accordance with HRS §338-18(d), has not authorized any other data to be made available to the public.” MY QUESTION IS: How can they say, with a straight face, that the director has not authorized any other data to be made available to the public, in light of their two public notices released on their web site? WHAT A JOKE!

    The fix is definitely in and the cover-up is at full speed ahead. /Lizard

    ——————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: Lizard, regarding the Index Data, it has to include the date because it is data on an index which was created on a specific date. Indeed this is how it was first asked for and how it was first released. They have to say that the index data corresponds to an event on a specific date, since all vital records are tied to a date, or should be. However, perhaps they are trying to claim that release of the date impairs privacy since it results in knowing the age of the person, as has been previously claimed elsewhere. In this case, obviously, that would not apply UNLESS Obama was not physically born on Aug. 4, 1961. So their reticence here raises the issue.

  13. epicurious   Friday, December 18, 2009 at 9:36 PM

    §338-18 states “Disclosure of records. (a) …..to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or BY RULES ADOPTED by the department of health.” (emphasis mine)

    Public Health Regulation Chapter 8B
    2.5 Eligibility for Copies of Birth Certificates
    B. Abbreviated Copy
    (2) A non-certified copy containing only such information as listed in accordance with Section 2.2 may be issued to ANY PERSON or ORGANIZATION requesting it. (emphasis mine)

    2.2 List of Events
    “….Only such identifying information for each event shall be included as the Director of Health considers appropriate.”
    A. No address unless permission is given (paraphrased)
    B. Any report or information in which in the judgement of the Director of Heath may harm the character or reputation of the person involved shall be omitted from the lists.
    C. No illegitimate birth shall be included in any list prepared under this section.

    I interpret this to mean that the Director of Health can prepare a non-certified abbreviated copy (COLB) for any person or organization who requests it. The only thing that cannot be disclosed is the address and an illegitimate birth.

    Everything else is fair game meaning that Director Fukino can prepare a non certified COLB unless Obama is illegitimate or there is information contained in the birth record that in her opinion would be harmful to his character or reputation. Requests for a non-certified COLB have been denied thus far.

    Logical conclusions:
    A. Obama was illegitimate or
    B. The birth record does not reflect his carefully crafted lie and thus the release would cause irreparable to his reputation.

  14. Kathy   Friday, December 18, 2009 at 9:24 PM

    The following was posted by Attorney Leo c. Donofrio on his blog on 11-5-2009. Leo is preoccupied elsewhere. Is there an attorney out there who will file an appeal?

    NEXT PHASE
    The next phase will be to appeal the DoH decision not to release these documents. The law in Hawaii supports such release since both Obama and the DoH have waived privacy protections to those portions of the records which have already been made public. According to precedent in Hawaii, such vital records should be released with any information which has not been previously made public redacted.
    Developing…
    Leo C. Donofrio

  15. borderraven   Friday, December 18, 2009 at 8:35 PM

    Under HRS §338-18(g) you can request a “verification” of the vital statistic records. So, it seems 20 or 200 carefully worded questions, can be posed to narrow a vision.

    Don’t request a certified copy, but request a “verification” the name is on the certificate by referring to the numbered document.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.