Hawaii Ombudsman’s Office: Online research of requesters is acceptable

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

Hawaii’s Open Records Law, or UIPA, was passed in 1988.  The introduction to the UIPA law manual, published in 2008, reads, in part:

Recognizing public scrutiny and participation to be essential to the exercise of that power, the Legislature declared it to be the policy of this State to conduct government as openly as possible tempered by the right of the people to privacy as embodied in our State Constitution.

To that end, the UIPA mandates that all government records be open to public inspection unless access is specifically restricted or closed by law.

Ms. Gotto had not requested information about Barack Hussein Obama or any other individual’s records which are protected by Hawaii law. Earlier this year, numerous requests for Obama’s birth certificate from others were supposedly the reason that Hawaii passed a “Vexatious Requester” law.

On a national level, the Associated Press recently reported that the Department of Homeland Security routed Freedom of Information Act requests to political advisers to investigate the requesters’ backgrounds.  The report states that when the AP investigated DHS due to the stonewalling of its own requests, the practice was halted.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, in part:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Ms. Gotto’s complaint to the Ombudsman was a result of her having submitted questions about a Hawaiian Certificate of Birth to the Vital Records Department within the Hawaii Department of Health in October 2009. Her original request was:

“If amendments are made to a Hawaiian Cert of Birth and a late birth certificate is issued in lieu thereof, is it reasonable to assume it is called a Late Hawaiian Cert of Birth?”  (Dr. Okubo replied) I do not understand your question.  Please send this request with clarification to vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov

I just want to know what an amended Hawaiian Cert of Birth is called after it is amended.  Is it then called a “late birth certificate”, late Hawaiian Certificate of Birth or something else?  The amending of Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian birth certificates appear to be different in your DOH Vital Records section.

Also, perhaps you can provide me more clarification on the last question I asked Dr. Okubo:

“From the amendment instructions above for a non-Hawaiian cert of birth, once it is marked up with the changes, does it stay in the file like that or will a new one be issued similar to the late HI BC?: (Dr. Okubo replied) As I understand, any changes to Hawaii vital records are noted on the record.

Here’s my point:   What Dr. Okubo stated is true for what (appears to be) non -Hawaiian BCs only.  The Vital Records Amendment section appears to differentiate how amendments are done to both  Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian birth certificates.  The amended  Hawaiian BC must be cancelled and a “late” birth certificate is issued in lieu  thereof.  However, that does not appear to be the procedure for  non-Hawaiian BCs.  They are to be amended on the face of the record, not replaced with a new BC apparently.

Therefore, in addition to the question above asking what a “late” cert of birth is officially called after an amendment is this question:  are Hawaiian birth certs amended differently from non-Hawaiian birth certs?  It reads that way to me.  It is clear that the amended Hawaiian BC is replaced with a “late”/new BC.  What is not clear is whether the amended/marked-up non-Hawaiian BC stays in the file marked up or is it replaced with a new BC incorporating the changes?

Thank you for clearing this up for me.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any more clarification on my questions.  They come right out of the Vital Records requirement.  It’s just a bit confusing with Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian BC amendments.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Gotto

Instead of providing a response, Ken David of the Vital Records Department sent the following email to Janice Okubo, Communications Director at the Hawaii Department of Health:

Subject: FW: Per Dr. Okubo
From: vr-info
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2009 1:50 PM
To: Okubo, Janice S.
Cc: Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D.
Subject: Re: Per Dr. Okubo

Hi, Janice,

I checked online for a “Kathleen Gotto” and I came across this letter that I presume she wrote http://blogtalkradio.com/MenifeeValleyRadio/blog/2008/11/15/Letter-to-the-US-Supreme-from-Kathleen-Gotto-This-is-a-vital-issue-to-us-all who accused Obama of “…who almost got away with stealing the Presidency…” I doubt that any answer I might send her would satisfy her since she has the same agenda as Rob Lamb (who accused me of lying and that I should be fired). Although Rob Lamb did not mention Obama’s name, he can be found online as another person who has a hidden agenda. It is interesting that in all of Rob Lamb’s emails he did not mention Obama’s name even once.

Aloha,

Ken

The last Ms. Gotto heard regarding her information request was on October 5, 2009, and then communications from them ceased.  She filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman on March 7, 2010, which reads as follows:

From: Kathleen Gotto
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 12:05 PM
To: Office of the Ombudsman
Subject: Gotto Complaint (final)
Importance: High

Dear Mr. Matsunaga,

Re: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/05/hawaii-department-of-health-has-conspired-against-the-public-for-5-months/

I initially contacted you a few months ago (see your acknowledgement below), but may have done so online as I do not seem to have a copy of it and your response did not include my initial email.  However, I did follow your instruction on your website to try to resolve my difficulty in getting clear and unambiguous information releasable under UIPA laws from the Hawai’i Dept of Health and their Vital Records Dept.

Unfortunately, I have just discovered that Janice Okubo and Ken David apparently conspired to withhold information from me.  To make matters even worse, Mr. David took it upon himself to “Google” my name and investigate me!  I feel very violated over his actions.  I am requesting that your office investigate this matter and provide me a report of your findings and recommendations.  There needs to be consequences for this kind of conspiratorial behavior by state officials who are sworn to uphold the law; specifically, U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I of §1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.  The rights deprived are those granted in the UIPA for disclosure of government records.

I am also requesting the information that has yet to be provided.  Please see my attached email to Janice Okubo, et al.  The attached email gives a good audit trail for this issue.  However, I would like to correct the  assertion that Ms. Joestling made in her January 2, 2010 response to me.  She stated in her first paragraph, “…First let me clarify that a request under the UIPA is for records, not for information that needs to be compiled or collected.” However, IAW Hawai’i Revised Statues 92F-12, it states

§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;

So I do not believe Ms. Joestling was correct in her statement above.  I was requesting policy information on the two questions still not satisfactorily responded to (in the attached email and excerpted here below), not for information that needed to be compiled or collected.

These are the questions still requiring a clear, honest and unambiguous answer.  As you can plainly see, Ms. Okubo is giving me a disingenuous answer in no. 3) and when I did as she requested in no. 4) and sent the question to the Vital Records Dept., Ken David investigated me online.

3) If there is only one index database, is there any indicator applied to the names therein that denote whether the party was born in Hawaii or out of Hawaii?  The index includes index data from Hawaii vital records.

Also,  (4)  If amendments are made to a Hawaiian Cert of Birth and a late birth certificate is issued in lieu thereof, is it reasonable to assume it is called a Late Hawaiian Cert of Birth? I do not understand your question.  Please send this request with clarification to vr-info@doh.hawaii.gov

In addition to the two questions above, I would like to know where and how out-of-state births are recorded.  According to Ms. Joestling, she believes that the Vital Records Dept only has in-state births.  Therefore, that begs the question where and how out-of-state births are recorded.

To sum up, I am requesting that (1) your office would investigate the violation of my civil rights by Mr. David and Ms. Okubo and provide me a copy of your findings and recommendations; and (2) to afford me the courtesy of an unambiguous and complete response to my three questions above.

With all the disinformation and disingenuous responses from Hawai’i’s Dept of Health on releasable information under UIPA, the American public needs to see that someone will hold state officials accountable to the law and adhering to their own policies and procedures.  I assume and trust that that responsibility falls to your Ombudsman office.  I thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.  Kanshaitashimasu.

Most sincerely,

Kathleen Gotto

————————–
This is to acknowledge receipt of your email message below.
Please call me at 808-587-0770 so that we may discuss your complaint further. If I am not available when you call our office, please leave a telephone number at which I may reach you.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ ALFRED Y. ITAMURA
Analyst
For ROBIN K. MATSUNAGA
Ombudsman, State of Hawaii

Ms. Gotto also wrote to Governor Linda Lingle, but because the governor’s  email box apparently could not accept messages at that time, Gotto addressed her email to the Lt. Governor’s office:

—– Original Message —–
From: Kathleen Gotto
To: ltgov@hawaii.gov
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 1:21 PM
Subject: Ombudsman Assistance

Dear LtGov Aiona,

I’ve tried several times today to send the email message below to Gov Lingle; however, the message keeps popping up that the site is down for maintenance.  So, I am sending this to you in the hopes that you will share it with Gov. Lingle.  Thank you.

Dear Governor Lingle,

I am writing as a courtesy to inform you of my request for assistance from Mr. Matsunaga, Hawai’i’s Ombudsman.  I am unable to attach any correspondence to this email, but Mr. Matsunaga can fill you in.  The issue concerns inappropriate behavior by high-level Hawai’i Dept of Health officials and the lack of adherence to Hawai’i’s UIPA laws, et al.

As governor, I am sure you are concerned about any actions coming from state officials that cast discredit upon Hawai’i, especially those that flagrantly violate state and federal laws.  I trust that the Ombudsman Office has the integrity to investigate the matters presented to them and that I will be provided a report of findings and recommendations upon an investigation.

Should you need any further elucidation on the matters presented herein, I will be most happy to assist in any way I can.