quote:

Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended.

Correspondence sent to TerriK by Hawaii officials indicates that President Obama’s vital records have been amended and official records pertaining thereto are maintained by the state of Hawaii.

This was not originally an action to reveal his actual BC and personal vital records info...the original requests were for records pertaining to whether he requested his file for the purpose of amending and whether he did amend... the actual contents of his personal vital records are protected, she wasnt asking to see those. She was asking whether he paid any fees to amend them and whether they had been amended... not the contents of the amendments.

However, I am going to raise the issue that since ***ino made a public statement about his place of birth, then all records viewed by her for the purposes of making that statement are supposed to be made public under 92F-12(15), information required to be made public. Regardless, the other statement she made about him being a natural born citizen involves a whole other can of worms concerning the advice of the Attorney General and it is the AG opinion letter that we are really after and which was denied to TerriK. The statutory and case law indicates that this information MUST be made public. That means we should get an answer as to what definition of nbc ***ino used to make that statement.

quote:

TerriK INVESTIGATION – PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health Directors ***ino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection.

The public is entitled, with no exception provided by law, to examine all index data referred to in HRS 338-18(d) pertaining to each and every vital record on file in the state of Hawaii for President Obama.

It’s quite amazing, but OIP Opinion Letter 07-07 clearly indicates that once information contained in a vital record is exposed, the person no longer has a privacy interest in the exposed information. And therefore, the relevant original vital records should be made public in redacted form when disclosure of the relevant information is mandatory according to statute – in this case more than one, specifically the UIPA at 92F-12(15) and Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(d).

The actions of Director ***ino and Communications Director Okubo couldn’t be more blatantly opposed to the Hawaii legislature’s intention of “open government and public participation”. Certainly, since these officials are familiar with these statutes, it appears some of their false statements were intentional. Whether a pattern of fraud existed for the purpose of confounding genuine public investigations into government should be the subject of both disciplinary and criminal investigations.

quote:

Who is Eligible to Apply for an Amended Certificate of Birth?

As provided by law (HRS §§338-17.7, 338-20.5), the following persons may apply for an amended certificate of birth:

A person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and

1. has become legally adopted, or
2. has undergone a sex change operation, or
3. a legal determination of the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file has been made, or
4. previously recorded information in relation to the person’s surname and/or the father’s personal particulars has been altered pursuant to law.

A person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii.

quote:

"Hawaii DoH Official Janice Okubo Places Her Thumb Directly In The Giant’s Eye.

A report published today by the Post and Email’s John Charlton, chronicled that a citizen, having read and understood Part 1 of the Terrik investigation, requested that Hawaii Department of Health (DoH) Communications Director, Janice Okubo, forward to him “index data” pertaining to vital records of Barack Obama, citing Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(d). Okubo’s illegal and evasive response shows a continuing offensive pattern of misdirection:
[email snipped]

Okubo cites 338-18(b) while completely ignoring 338-18(d), which states:

(d) Index data consisting of 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.

Index data is information. And as I pointed out in yesterday’s report, various OIP Opinion Letters state that this information must be made available to the public, no exceptions apply.

Yet, Okubo’s response tells the citizen that “State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record…”

That’s a direct lie.

Part 2 of the TerriK Investigation will document official responses to TerriK by OIP staff attorneys which appear to indicate that an ideological struggle – between the DoH and the OIP – may be in play behind the scenes in Hawaii.

...
State of Hawaii, take notice – the people will be exercising their power. The people will be made to understand their power under the UIPA. The people will receive all information due to them under the UIPA. And the people will prevail.
...
The giant will command the DoH to issue all information due to the giant under the appropriate laws. The UIPA is such a law. As an attorney, I am very impressed with the UIPA. It’s easy to read, understand, implement and draft appeals under. Whoever drafted it was very skilled. They did the public giant justice. The UIPA was written to protect the eyes of the giant.

DoH Communications Director Okubo has placed her thumb directly in the eye of the giant. She never got the memo – “Giant is awake”.

Her thumb will be removed from the giant’s eye."

quote:

So let me feed my craving for intrigue and problem solving without the name calling please? Pieces to a puzzle, GAWD I love puzzles! And what the picture is when it's finished is what it is. Frankly I couldn't care less either way. I mean, what good would it do anyway? I'm just having FUN!

quote:

Originally posted by Dave_M:

quote:

So let me feed my craving for intrigue and problem solving without the name calling please? Pieces to a puzzle, GAWD I love puzzles! And what the picture is when it's finished is what it is. Frankly I couldn't care less either way. I mean, what good would it do anyway? I'm just having FUN!

Why, there are real issues to explore, not those made up by people. Court after court have decided there is not an issue. You do not believe them. Someone is saying they are suing the state to get the info - until they file a suit, there is not case. Until a judge schedules a hearing and decides to let it go to trial, there is no legal issue.

Anyone can make up anything, And reading the post above mine, it looks like pure fiction. Who is the giant. A small group of people are demanding something they are not legally entitled to receive. They are clogging the courts with nonsense. They hire 10 rate lawyers to prosecute cases.

You can have your views, but no one will ever take you serious Marine5711 as long as you make such points.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave_M:

quote:

So let me feed my craving for intrigue and problem solving without the name calling please? Pieces to a puzzle, GAWD I love puzzles! And what the picture is when it's finished is what it is. Frankly I couldn't care less either way. I mean, what good would it do anyway? I'm just having FUN!

Court after court have decided there is not an issue.

quote:

The fact remains, no case has been heard on the merits. None. What the court will eventually need to finally deal with is: Can someone with a foreign national father (who was never permanently domiciled in the U.S.), and someone who themselves admit that their birth was governed by a foreign government (Barry admitted such on his F.T.S. web site)...can someone in that situation be considered a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S....that the Constitution requires for POTUS and CinC eligibility.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave_M:
I do not believe that it is possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was born anywhere but Hawaii. Why, because there is a COLB from Hawaii. All other countries that have been discussed at that time where in transition, and the records of such where less than accurate. Any records from Africa of that period are in doubt given the amount of corruption that is found in the various contries.

You are using the standard of proof in criminal cases. The standard of proof in civil cases is either clear and convincing evidence or preponderance of the evidence. My belief is that if there was real evidence that met the standard for acceptance for a court, the last court might have ruled. The court ruled the evidence was not acceptable for admission under federal rules (Capt Connie Rhodes case- quote - "Judge Land commented that the process sounded like bribery and therefore, could not justify the authentication of the birth certificate.").

quote:

Originally posted by AirForceAggie:
Once again for you idiots who fail to understand the law. It doesn't matter where he was born. So long as one parent is an US citizen, which his mom was, and had lived at least 10 years after the age of 16 in the US, whcih she did also, the child is a natural born citizen. It is so stated in the immigration and naturalization act. John, just give it up. The world is short on resources and we need the tinfoil you are wearing on your head for better purposes.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave_M:

quote:

The fact remains, no case has been heard on the merits. None. What the court will eventually need to finally deal with is: Can someone with a foreign national father (who was never permanently domiciled in the U.S.), and someone who themselves admit that their birth was governed by a foreign government (Barry admitted such on his F.T.S. web site)...can someone in that situation be considered a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S....that the Constitution requires for POTUS and CinC eligibility.

I have stated before that only the Supreme Court has a possible jurisdiction, and my reading of the law says that once a person is President, only Congress can remove him. Despite your belief, Mr. Obama has been vetted by a variety of processes, and that once he was elected, the people vetted him. You had a chance before the election to make a clear case, but that case also failed in the courts.

quote:

TerriK INVESTIGATION, PART 2: OIP Staff Attorney Linden Joesting’s Response to TerriK’s Appeal Appears To Confirm That The DoH Maintains Amended Vital Records For President Obama.
...
An agency can only deny access to a record it does actually maintain.
...
OIP Staff Attorney Linden Joesting Issued Multiple Confirmations That The DoH Was Required To Inform TerriK If They Did Not Maintain The Records She Requested.
...

quote:

Originally posted by rxsid4:
Update...

quote:

TerriK INVESTIGATION, PART 2: OIP Staff Attorney Linden Joesting’s Response to TerriK’s Appeal Appears To Confirm That The DoH Maintains Amended Vital Records For President Obama.
...
An agency can only deny access to a record it does actually maintain.
...
OIP Staff Attorney Linden Joesting Issued Multiple Confirmations That The DoH Was Required To Inform TerriK If They Did Not Maintain The Records She Requested.
...

Much more (including back and forth emails), here:
"http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/terrik-investigation-part-2-oip-staff-attorney-linden-joestings-response-to-terriks-appeal-appears-to-confirm-that-the-doh-maintains-amended-vital-records-for-president-obama/"

quote:

Originally posted by OldAFcop:
Links are always good! Thank you!

quote:

TerriK INVESTIGATION: The Post and Email Blog Features Important Related Story – “Is ***ino’s office in open rout?”

John Charlton of The Post and Email blog has an important follow up report pertaining to the TerriK Investigation out today:
Is ***ino’s office in open rout?

quote:

September 30, 2009 by John Charlton
DOH DIRECTOR’S OFFICE SHAKEN UP BY CITIZEN’S HUNCH THAT OBAMA HAS ALTERED HIS ORIGINAL VITAL RECORDS

by John Charlton

(Sept. 30, 2009) — Recent public revelations by Attorney Leo Donofrio, that the office of Dr. Chiyome L. ***ino, the Director of the Department of Health for the State of Hawaii, has a policy of obstructing and misdirecting citizens’ requests for information, in violation of Hawaiian Statutes, seems to have led to confusion and rout in the office of the director.

Attorney Donofrio has detailed the requests of TerryK in July, and her subsequent requests in September (part 1 & 2). The Post & Email has also reported the request made last week by another citizen for index data & redacted records, which was also analysed by Attorney Donofrio.

An analysis of the responses received from Janice S. Okubo, Communications Director at the Department of Health, indicates there is panic in the director’s office.

First, there are notable inconsistencies of response, ranging from misdirecting citizens who make requests, to outright denials that the laws allow what they allow; to interpretations of departmental policies as being more binding tha[n] Hawaii Statutes.

Second, when the second citizen fired back a letter of complaint, in response to the denial by Janice Okubo, it appears that two of the officials in the Director’s Office who received it — Katherine P. Kealoha and Noemi Pendleton — conveniently fled the office, setting their email programs to “auto reply”, with messages that they would be out of the office for some days. Unwittingly, however, these auto-responders have confirmed that the correspondence was received by Janice Okubo; who as of this report, has continued to refuse to reply to the citizen’s legitimate request…

(click here to continue reading full report…."http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/is-***inos-office-in-open-rout/")

I [Leo] left the following comment:

naturalborncitizen Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Great Job on this. You should also know that the UIPA and case law is very clear that the response given to your reader on that form is improper…

§2-71-14 (c)(3)

(3) The request requires the agency to create a summary or compilation of information from records that is not readily retrievable.

http://www.state.hi.us/oip/rules.html#27114

But read the UIPA at….

http://www.state.hi.us/oip/uipa.html#92F11

Ҥ92F-11

(c) Unless the information is readily retrievable by the agency in the form in which it is requested, an agency shall not be required to prepare a compilation or summary of its records.”

You see that, if the information is readily retrievable then they can’t rely on that provision. This was also discussed in the Hawaii Supreme Court case

STATE OF HAWAI’I ORGANIZATION OF POLICE OFFICERS (SHOPO) v. SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS-UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I CHAPTER

83 Haw. 378; 927 P.2d 386; 1996 Haw. LEXIS 156; 154 L.R.R.M. 2373

“In a related argument, the City, relying on HRS § 92F-11(c), asserts that the circuit court committed reversible error by ordering the City to create a roster of disciplined employees. The City’s argument is patently meritless. HRS § 92F-11(c) provides that “unless the information is readily retrievable by the agency in the form in which it is requested, an agency shall not be required to prepare a compilation or summary of its records.” The circuit court’s order granting summary judgment, as modified by its June 16, 1994 order, [***51] states that “the HPD may either produce a summary of the information requested or produce all documents pertaining to the subject matter, using whichever method of disclosure the HPD deems more expedient.” (Emphases added.) Clearly, the City was not ordered to create a “roster.” Accordingly, we discern no error. ”

They used this same tactic against TerriK, but on that form they were so very devious by checking two boxes. They checked the denial box for her entire list of requests…and that would mean they had the documents but are not allowing access. And they also checked the box for the list/summary thing. That response is not a denial of access, it’s a denial that they have the means to retrieve the records requested.

Nice report. This isn’t right. I have UIPA requests pending as well. Will publish those soon.

quote:

Originally posted by 67NOV:
It was amended, so what? My birth cert was also. My folks first were going to call me Mark, changed the name to Matthew. Guess what? Birth cert was amended to show a name change.