Posted on 11/05/2009 10:35:29 AM PST by rxsid
"Hawaii Update: DoH Confirms They Maintain A Birth Record For Obama Dated From August 1961.
After various responses from the DoH giving unclear answers to UIPA requests which exclusively pertained to birth documents for Obama dating back to August 1961 – specifically documents which caused his birth to have been “Filed by Registrar August 8, 1961″ – I requested assistance from the OIP. Their interpretation of the DoH response was that of a denial of access. But the OIP also issued guidance as to how I could properly refine my request.
I took the OIP advice and issued a 6th UIPA request asking for the same documents and limiting any possible wiggle room.
And to this request I recently received a clear denial of access from the DoH by way of an official OIP form. I also received clear response forms from the DoH as to my previous UIPA requests.
The form I received is the same posted at the OIP web site. The box which says “denied in its entirety” was checked.
SIGNIFICANCE
Prior on target UIPA requests by other researchers had more than one box checked. The denied box was checked and other boxes were checked which could also mean that the DoH did not maintain the record. That policy – at least for my UIPA requests – has now changed as the DoH only checked the “DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY” box.
According to OIP administrative rules and guidance from OIP staff attorney Linden Joesting (originally provided to Terri K), the denial of access box can only be checked when the agency does in fact maintain the requested record.
I requested birth records for President Obama – maintained by the DoH – dated from August 1961. I was only concerned with documents which came into existence no later than August 10th 1961. The DoH has replied by denying access to those records.
This is a clear statutory admission that they possess records pertaining to President Obama’s birth which came into existence back in August 1961.
And this is the first clear admission that such birth records exist and are currently maintained by the DoH.
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"
Ping. Latest from Leo...
I don’t know that this is necessarily true. It just meant they checked a box denying access. They never said they had the document or gave any other information. They have not and will not respond to any of your requests. I think that’s all it means.
I think Leo is saying that by HI law, they can not check that box...and that box alone, IF in fact no such records exist.
by why is this so hard...?
There is a method to his madness.
~~Donofrio update >>>>> PING!
“FREE THE LONG FORM!”
“According to OIP administrative rules and guidance from OIP staff attorney Linden Joesting (originally provided to Terri K), the denial of access box can only be checked when the agency does in fact maintain the requested record.” Since we have caught the DoH in lies before, I find it astonishing that Leo is so naive as to believe the DoH has followed strictly their own laws. The title of this thread is a misnomer.
Many thnaks to Leo, Miss Tickly and the others who have been helping Leo. Hawaii is covering something up.
The HI law clearly states this is public information now and it needs to be released.
It doesn't sound like he's working off an assumption, based on this statement:
"According to OIP administrative rules and guidance from OIP staff attorney Linden Joesting (originally provided to Terri K), the denial of access box can only be checked when the agency does in fact maintain the requested record."
Perhaps he's not relying on DoH, but rather the OIP office and their attorneys who appear to be playing closer to their own rules. From there, perhaps he's going to rely on the Hawaiian courts to uphold their laws when presented with clear violations (and not allegations or theories) by the DoH documented in letters/emails.
Why so fast to remove this thread? We need a dozen more over the next few hours to maximize its exposure.
Well, I try not to “step on the toes” of others. In this case, I searched for this topic from Leo’s site and didn’t find one (probably because it was being composed the same time I composed this one). Even though this thread is the complete quote (& not an excerpt), I initially wanted to try and steer folks to the other thread so as to try and minimize good ideas/comments/links from getting lost between multiple threads.
Also, I’ve noticed in the past (in general) that threads get pulled by the Mods because they are duplicates. Was just trying to give an early heads up, but it appears the Mod’s have already been here...since one post has been removed, and they (Mod’s) don’t seem to mind, I guess.
You betcha! There probably is a Fort Marcy Park in Honolulu, and The Usurper's cronies have reminded them about it.
Hey somebody wake the trolls, will ya? First Birther thread in days and all I hear is the chirping of crickets. /sarc
I keep wondering about this: Why would a recently elected U.S. Illinois Senator suddenly request a copy of his Hawaii short form birth certificate in 2007?
Did Obama lose his original Hawaii 1961 birth certificate, so he needed a new one?
Or, did Obama request a new Hawaii short form birth certificate for a bad reason: He did not want to display his long form Hawaii birth certificate---the one that he stores in a safe place in his home---out of fear that some information on the Hawaii long form birth certificate would damage him politically?
Strange. Very strange behavior on the part of the President of the United States, in my opinion.
1. But this is what makes me sick as I think about the Ft. Hood gunman and President Obama: In the following week, we will probably learn more about this very sick Ft. Hood doctor gunman than we have learned about the birth and early background of Obama over the past few years, the President of the United States, because Obama won't give us documents to prove that he is who he says he is.
2. Within a few days, we will probably know what the Ft. Hood murderer liked for breakfast, but we can't legally look at President Obama's Hawaii long form birth certificate so that we can prove for certain that Obama is who he says he is.
3. Yes, I'm angry that within a few days, we will know every detail of the Ft. Hood murderer's background as federal agencies and the media search every inch of this Ft. Hood murderer's background.
4. However, at the same time, those same government agencies and the same media DON'T have the courage to go deep into Obama's background to make sure that Obama is who he says he is.
5. Yes, I am very angry that within a few days, we will know every inch of the Ft. Hood doctor gunman's background, while, at the same time, we still can't examine Obama's long form birth certificate so that we can be certain that Obama is who he says he is.
Perhaps if you filed for the BC under the Freedom of Information Act you could argue that it should be public knowledge that a person holding the office of president is eligible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.