Posted on 03/08/2010 8:08:30 PM PST by butterdezillion
Ah. I was looking to see what might have triggered that and the earliest I had posted anything publicly on the “Vexatious Requestors” front was on the 26th. But now the timing makes sense. Was that the day you first asked for clarification?
Hmm. That Advertiser article was on the 19th so I guess I was posting publicly about that. I bet the request to Joesting was what put Fukino into the ring. Her testimony was too late for the actual meeting they had so something triggered her response late in the game.
Yes, I sent the request to Joesting on the 22nd. I can’t help but think it’s related. And I was keeping Joesting’s reply quiet for her sake while they were conspiring to label people crazy.
So it was a scheduled meeting? Maybe it had nothing to do with the request to Joesting.
I wonder if a person will be allowed to request help or guidance from the OIP OR is this legislation reserved for multiple formal records requesters only...
Is this an offical statement that the copy posted is accurate ??
I would think that testimony to a legislative body would be considered perjury if it stated facts known to be false.
But then, we know she fudged the numbers on people asking for Obama’s birth certificate also
She could be putting herself in definite line of fire for a perjury charge there.
I agree. I can’t imagine that many people are actually asking for his birth certificate over and over.
I believe she is lying and should have to prove what she is claiming.
People are asking for other types of records and documents, period.
I say BS.
It was a scheduled meeting but Fukino’s testimony was not received in time for the meeting - nor was the tax dude’s testimony. Either she was just running behind or something at the end nudged her toward adding the testimony.
Wanna know what DOESN’T fit the narrative? Ender Wiggins’ “friend” walking into the DOH office and spending 3 hours shooting the breeze with the workers there. But I think we all knew that was a lie anyway.
I am going to request electronic copies of the years-worth of 50+ UIPA requests a month for Obama’s birth certificate per Fukino’s public testimony.
Let’s see if there are “records resonsive to my request.”
lolol.
It took 15 communications between me and Okubo for her to end up saying she stands by their standard certificate of birth having not even half of the content required by Hawaii law. That’s one request not even for anything of Obama’s. She could do a LOT of printing to come up with 50 requests for Obama’s birth certificate.
Oh, but I forgot that they’re deleting the e-mails that don’t fit their particular narrative. If they leave out all the incriminating e-mails where they farted in our general direction it’ll look like they haven’t been doing ANYTHING. lol.
I requested them, all 600—approximately. And I requoted her saying they were requests “for his birth certificate.”
I don’t want her to try to throw in requests for other items and act like it’s not perjury. I’ll let you know what she responds with. She could seriously implicate herself if she doesn’t cough them up.
|
Is this an official statement that the copy posted is accurate ?? Perhaps. Good catch. Butterdezillion, since you have a line of communication with Fukino and/or her office, I strongly suggest getting her to clarify her statement on this very point. Also, is she referring only to his campaign website (I'm assuming the "Fight the Smears" version) or ALSO the COLB that appeared on FactCheck.org. I suspect she will shift back to saying she's unwilling to confirm that her office sent all/some/none of the online Obama birth certificates, but the language she uses can be very revealing. Backing her into a corner can be insightful if she can’t confirm that, as she has now has publicly acknowledged she’s aware of the this “former campaign website” birth certificate. Again, by acknowledging this, I’d ask her if she is positively confirming that it originate from her office. Asking the question over and over can get people to reveal the truth when their hair is down (early in the work week) or when their blood sugar is low (mid-afternoon, after lunch). Here are the four versions of the COLB from Polarik's final report:
|
UH, yeah it was a lie. What could you talk aobut for three hours.
Amazing that wiggins had such a problem with us ‘bothering’ the DOH but his frind can spend three hours there shooting the shite?
Good job exposing the lie though.=)
“Butterdezillion, since you have a line of communication with Fukino and/or her office, I strongly suggest getting her to clarify her statement on this very point.”
I’m sorry to bring this up, but this has actually become the problem. Because only handfuls of us are communicating with them, we are becoming targets. Everyone needs to pitch in on the effort of talking to Hawaii, IMO.
This legislation is a setup, I don’t want to see Butter caught in the trap.
I’m actually probably the lame duck in the group right now. They have 10 business days to respond to anything I send them and can ask for a 10-day extension. They could have me named a “vexatious requestor” before she even has to say “boo” to me. The request would have to come from somebody fresh - preferably on a non-personal e-mail address.
Even at that, what they always come back with is that they are not required to answer questions. The day that will change is when she is subpoenaed. Or when a member of the Hawaii House or Senate asked, maybe. I wonder who was the lone courageous dissenter who voted against the bill... That would be the person to call, asking them to ask Fukino to confirm what she meant by that testimony. Do we have somebody from Hawaii who is open to making this kind of communication?
Hey, while I’ve got you - do you remember off-hand if Polarik said that the gender was altered on the Factcheck COLB?
Somebody types as well as Okubo apparently. This bill is set to go into effect on January 1, 2050. lol.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/bills/SB2937_SD1_.htm
Senator Slom. The one honest person in the Hawaii Senate. Voted against it in committee and voted against it in the full Senate.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2937
That’s HILARIOUS.
It says it twice. Whew—and here we were worried that it applied to us.
Well, at least it’s proof that this was thrown together in a rush to shut people up. So rushed that it’s not effective for another 40 years.
Request info from the Hawaii BUREAU OF TOURISM asking the location where our family can have their picture taken at Obama’s birthplace. We’ve already taken photos at many other Presidential Birthplaces throughout the nation during our family vacations. The only one we’re missing is our current president.
The most likely intended date was January 1, 2010. If so, they’re going to try to do the retroactive thing.
And I’d like to know what gave the OIP or the DOH authority to evaluate anybody at this point to pre-qualify them as “vexatious requestors”. Again, seems to me they are going to try to apply this law retroactively.
I wonder if it can pass an honest judiciary committee. Then again, is there such a thing?
Cicero and I are curious if you will be fined for a crime not on the books yet.
I’m no lawyer, but if you are, I think you might have one heck of a case on your hands.
Retroactive/retrospective law enforcement is a big “no-no”.
Suppose I bought bread at Walmart for the past five years. All the sudden, it’s illegal to buy bread there. It’s bad enough to make it a future crime, but to trace back five years and retroactively/retrospectively punish me for something legal at the time? Clear injustice. Only the most rabid leftist lawyers would disagree.
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.