Replies

You’re not processing, curiosity. Nobody “forgot” anything. The response was double-checked by the director of the OIP, whose specific task was to find out if the answer was correct.

He said it was.

Give up the “It was a mistake” mantra. On two different requests - both checked for accuracy and appropriateness by the OIP - an amendment and/or original certificate completed via supplementary documents was confirmed. And they have stood by that answer for 6 months now - even as it’s been posted publicly that this confirms that Obama’s BC is not prima facie evidence.

They’re changing laws to try to get rid of “vexatious requestors”. It’s not like they don’t know what is being said. When there have been mistakes in their reasons in the past they have corrected them. Not so on either of these crucial requests.

Furthermore, within the past week my understanding has been further supported from inside the Hawaii government, although we’ve decided not to post that communication in order to protect the innocent.

It is not me who looks stupid.

I haven’t read this whole thread so forgive me if you answered this question. Did you make a UIPA request asking for an amended birth certificate or index data on an amended birth certificate?

Were you denied access or told there were no matching records?

Can you point me to your emails?

Then why post it?

Is that a statement you would accept as truth from Obama?

According to laws documented here, there could be multiple documents submitted to obtain a birth certificate. Vital records, plural, does not absolutely indicate an amended BC. Hawaii may consider all of the supporting documents submitted to obtain the original BC as vital records. I think TerriK may have read too much into Okubo's statement.

Additionally, regarding the absolute denial versus the Glomar response to TerriK's request, remember that Okubo was not abiding by the required UIPA/OIP rules in her initial responses to TerriK. IIRC, when Leo got involved and pointed out that Okubo was required to indicate that a record didn't exist, she then began using the required responses.

You’re not processing, curiosity. Nobody “forgot” anything. The response was double-checked by the director of the OIP, whose specific task was to find out if the answer was correct.

There's just one little problem: you have no proof that a failure to write "if any" necessarily indicates that a record exists. All you have is an OPI opinion advising the police department. It's not even an opinion about vital record requests, for crying out loud!