The Great Birth Index Fiasco

Back in February I requested to see, among other things, the hand-written birth index for 1961 (or microfilms of the hand-written index), which existed in 1980 and was required to be retained permanently. The HI State Archivist confirmed that the HDOH should have the document, but the HDOH said they didn’t have it. The entire history of that request is here.

The concluding response the HDOH gave was a claim that they did not have the handwritten 1961 birth index but that they could print the computer-generated 1961 birth index at a cost of $98.75, which I should send if I wanted them to send the record. They enclosed a Notice to Requester which outlined the reason for the specific cost (which included 4 15-minute periods for an office worker to “segregate” records, in addition to an hour to search for the record). The fine print of the Notice to Requester said that all requester obligations for the request had to be fulfilled within 20 business days or the agency would consider the request abandoned. Because I had never made a request for the computer-generated birth index there were no obligations for me to fulfill. The HDOH was simply telling me what it would cost to fill the request if I chose to make it.

On July 29^th I chose to make that request. I sent an e-mail saying that I would be sending a money order for $98.75 in order to get the computer-generated 1961 birth index and asking if I could have someone pick it up at their office on Thursday, Aug 5^th, if the money order was in their office by Mon, Aug 2. I also sent a hand-written letter officially requesting the computer-generated birth index, together with a copy of the Notice to Requester on which the cost had been stated and a money order for $98.75. My mail delivery confirmation showed that the written request and money order was in the HDOH office at 6:08AM on Aug 4^th. (I’ve mistakenly quoted it as 6:02AM elsewhere, including to the HDOH).

On Monday, Aug 2 I received an e-mail from the HDOH saying that my e-mail request had been marked by their IT Dept as being possible spam; I should re-send. I did not re-send because my question was moot by then and I had already sent the paper request and money order anyway.

On Aug 3^rd Mark Niesse of the AP asked the HDOH for copies of the last 3 requests for Obama’s records. Mine was one of those 3 requests. My e-mail account name was not redacted from the records the HDOH gave Niesse; he contacted me via Facebook to see if he could interview me for an article he was working on. (I did not respond to him until after the article ran.) On Aug 4^th (while my paper request and money order was in their office) Niesse interviewed Janice Okubo, who told him that they offer the computer-generated 1961 birth index for $98.75 but nobody had sent in any money yet and they were asking the AG for a ruling on whether they should continue to “offer” that. She said that Obama is in their 1961 birth index and they allow the public to view index records in their office.

So I have proof that my e-mail request for the computer-generated 1961 birth index had arrived in their office on July 29^th and a paper request and money order had arrived in their office by the start of the day on Aug 4^th – the very day when Janice Okubo told Mark Niesse that they offer the 1961 birth index for $98.75 (the amount of my money order). IOW, I have proof that I had my request and money order for the full amount in the HDOH office while they were still “offering” the 1961 birth index.

Niesse’s article wasn’t actually published until Saturday, Aug 7^th. In response to Okubo’s public statement in that article that they hadn’t received any money from anybody, I contacted Niesse to find out when he had interviewed Okubo and found that it was during the workday on Aug 4th.

Because I was concerned about how Niesse was able to find out my last name when I only use the name “Nellie” in my communications with the HDOH, I also e-mailed a request to see any UIPA responses the HDOH had sent out containing a request by me. They sent me a cover letter and enclosed their response to Niesse’s request, including my July 29^th request - flagged as possible spam but with almost the entire text visible.

I sent the HDOH a Cease and Desist letter , asking them to remove all references to my last name from their contacts with me and from the UIPA responses where they have referenced my last name. They have ignored my request, as their latest response to me contained my last name.

I also contacted the HDOH and after a series of calls and workers was told they couldn’t find a record of my request; they didn’t know what had happened to it but I should contact hdohinfo. So I did. Eventually they told me in an Aug 13^th e-mail that they were sending back my money order because I had abandoned my request since I hadn’t responded to the Notice to Requester within 20 days. And sure enough, they sent my money order back.

I reminded them that the Notice to Requester had been sent to me to tell me that I COULD request the computer-generated 1961 birth index, since the request I HAD actually made (for the handwritten index) could not be filled because that permanent record no longer exists (they claim). I asked them exactly when they say they received my request for a computer-generated 1961 birth index, since it had not been 20 business days since my first contact with their office requesting that particular record. At first they insisted that they had already answered all my questions so I made an actual UIPA Request for a copy of my request for the computer-generated 1961 birth index, including the date that it arrived in their office.

They had already sent back the money order that was included with my paper request. They had replied to my e-mailed request, asking me to re-send it. And they had sent copies of my e-mailed request to both Mark Niesse and myself in response to UIPA requests. That’s 4 different times that the HDOH showed that they had my request in their office - the e-mail request received by July 29 and the snail-mail request by Aug 4^th.

On the 10^th business day they e-mailed to say there were no records responsive to my request – that they had no record of my request for the computer-generated 1961 birth index. What they had acknowledged 4 different times before they now claim they don’t have.

They’ve also said they only collect birth data in 5-year increments so they can’t release the 1961 birth index. So in the same request as in the last paragraph I also requested “to see any communications to or from your office regarding what changed from the time you told me that you could release the computer-generated birth index for 1961 and now, as well as any duly-passed law or regulation which says that index data may only be released in increments of 5 years.”

No records responsive to my request. (It is worth noting that their MARRIAGE INDEX is in a 6-year increment for the years 1960-65 only, based upon copies of birth index pages they sent in response to a request)

I’ve also asked to see their communications asking for a ruling by the Hawaii Attorney General . They responded that there are no records responsive to my request. Compare this with the AG Administrative Rules’ procedures to amend rules (see Subchapter 4 ) or to ask for a declaratory judgment (see Subchapter 5 ) from the AG – which clearly require written communications.

2. The HDOH has changed their claims to say they can only release index data in increments of 5 years. But there are no laws or regulations which say that and they have the physical capability of printing whatever they want. Disclosure of the exact year of birth is apparently not forbidden, because according to Niesse’s article, Okubo already told him that Obama is in their 1961 birth index. HRS 338-18 requires index data to be released to the public.

3. Janice Okubo stated in a public interview for an article that was published nationally that they were asking the Hawaii Attorney General for a ruling on the implementation and/or interpretation of laws and rules – a process which is required to be done in writing. But the HDOH claims there are no communications to or from their office regarding why their “offer” of the 1961 birth index no longer exists.

4. All this is done to keep from having to release index data they claim is already accessible to the public at their office. They have stated that all index data is really about Obama. They have stated that Obama is in the 1961 birth index. But they appear to be lying and/or illegally destroying records, as well as disobeying HRS 338-18, UIPA, and their own Administrative Rules in order to try to avoid having to put their money where their mouth is. I give the complete details about this case because it is representative of a whole host of similar experiences I have had with the HDOH, as those who have read the blog are aware. Sadly, this seems to be typical fare from this government agency. And nobody in Hawaii’s government, media, or law enforcement will hold them accountable for it.

But reasonable people all over this country are asking, “Why? Why so much unethical and illegal behavior to hide the public index records they say they’ve already confirmed?”

Ping back to this one.

I really want to get that terminology etched into my memory.

Sandbagging - basically throwing up obstacles at every turn.

Gaslighting - changing everything to drive a person crazy.

Describes the HDOH to a T. And the OIP is worthless. When the HDOH didn’t respond by the deadlines the OIP said they can’t do anything about it. When even the Ombudsman’s Office noted that the HDOH was using the wrong reasons to justify their refusal to disclose a non-certified COLB and implied that under UIPA they would have to release it, the OIP said the HDOH gets to interpret HRS 338-18.

IOW, the OIP - which is supposed to be the watchdog to make sure that this sandbagging can’t occur - is complicit in it as well.

And the gaslighting is forbidden by law. The law says if they want to change the rules there is a formal procedure they have to use. I suppose they get around it by saying it’s not a rule, it’s a “procedure” - none of which is documented in their office as required by law, which makes it all fudgeable at any moment in time.

The “procedure v rule” tactic is how the dems tried to get healthcare reform to be unable to be repealed. I don’t know what happened with that. Did they put in the provision that future Congresses can’t repeal it except by an impossible majority?

Gaslighting is the essence of the Passport Office’s claim that they just, out of the blue without any documentation and without leaving any paper trail of authorization, destroyed potentially millions of passport applications. They can’t just do that. There has to be authorization and record of such a thing. To imply that they can do that stuff on a whim is a form of gaslighting. If the judge accepts that argument with all the evidence to the contrary, I’ll know the fix is in with that judge.

But I do know that psy-ops are being used.....

Its this kind of stuff going on behind the scenes so to speak that should convince even the most avid anti-birther that there really is something to this story. Innocent people don't engage in this behavior.

You are absolutely correct that Obama aside, if Hawaii's actions in birth certificate fraud go unchecked we will face a zillion more ineligible candidates with questionable Hawaii births. The rule of law must be supreme or we're dead as a society and as a nation.

God bless you B for all your work - its not going to go unrewarded I promise you!

For somebody who thinks Obama’s Factcheck COLB is fine and dandy you’re mighty sarcastic about “second-hand, undocumented, delayed, anonymous hearsay”

That's just because the FactCheck article (and accompanying photographs) isn't second-hand. Or undocumented. Or delayed. Or anonymous. Or hearsay.

But other than that, you're right...it's exactly the same thing.

I smell a double-standard from a mile away, LorenC, the anonymous poster.

I'm not anonymous. You're the one who has a snit when someone you've sent your last name to uses your last name.

I know ladysforest and I have no doubt that her source is reliable.

Gotcha. I should trust that the anonymous and unreachable "TsunamiGeno," who's vouched for by "ladysforest," who's in turn vouched for by "Nellie" is a reliable source. But that FactCheck isn't.

And I can see with my eyes that the image on P&E is a photo. TsunamiGeno did not get a photo of the record. The worker said he could not have “a copy”. Make of that what you will.

I make of it that "TsunamiGeno" supposedly made a trip to Hawaii and supposedly made a huge discovery, which he preserved precisely zero evidence of. And that "ladysforest" failed to report said huge discovery immediately, or even when she first wrote about "TsunamiGeno"s supposed trip way back in May, and only thought to mention the huge discovery another two months later as an afterthought. And that said huge discovery is directly contradicted by direct photographic evidence of someone who obviously DID make a documented trip to the HDOH, which in turn forces you to invent yet another conspiracy to claim that the HDOH has been altering records.

If everything is as you say, why is the HDOH refusing to release the birth index? Why are they specifically lying about not having my request for the computer-generated 1961 birth index, which was received by e-mail on July 29 and by snail-mail on Aug 4th?

Why are they doing this?

Probably because HDOH is, like FactCheck and Hillary Clinton and the judicial system and the entire Republican Party, involved in a massive bipartisan conspiracy to cover up the Dunham family's extensive 1961 fraud in obtaining fake birth documents for baby Barack because of Ann's secret and inexplicable trip to Kenya, plus covering up the Obama campaign's own fraudulent efforts in 2008 after a blogger made up a rumor that just happened to expose the whole shebang.

No wait...that's your explanation. My guess? Maybe it's because they're tired of dealing with people who actually believe the above nonsense.

I was aware of the whole process that happened with ladysforest at the time. I know she is telling the truth. What she said publicly is totally different than what she said publicly. If you think I’ve stated publicly everything I already know you’re nuts. There’s stuff you sit on until you’ve got all the pieces of the puzzle together.

What TsunamiGeno got was eyewitness observation, which is the foundational form of evidence for our judicial system. I wish he had gotten a pic, but he didn’t. He asked for a copy and they wouldn’t let him get any.

Factcheck claims eyewitness observation of a genuine COLB, but from the photos they took of what they claim to have seen, we see a combination of “date filed” and certificate number that the HDOH’s procedures (as stated by Okubo) renders impossible.

I’d rather have no pic at all than a pic of what is confirmed to be a forgery. And that forgery was mentioned by Obama’s attorney in the case before Judge Carter. So we’re talking perjury here.

So yes, TsunamiGeno’s account, supported by ladysforest, supported by Nellie is in every way more credible than the Factcheck photos of what the HDOH has already confirmed is a forged document.

If they’re tired of dealing with me, then just obey the law and be done with it. That’s the only way they’re going to stop me. Why won’t they do that?

That's just because the FactCheck article (and accompanying photographs) isn't second-hand. Or undocumented. Or delayed. Or anonymous. Or hearsay.

Technically, it is hearsay. The photos haven't been entered in court. The photos haven't been validated. The photos HAVE been scrubbed of EXIF data that was inconsistent with the story that was posted. The document in the photos doesn't match the alleged document in the image originally scanned and distributed by Tommy Vietor. The issuing agency won't confirm the certificate number as belonging to Obama. Factlack doesn't have credentials for authenticating legal documents. There are a lot of problems with this alleged evidence.

Good list of ‘issues’ with the photos. Here are some others. birth_certificate_1.jpg was taken during the day, birth_certificate_3.jpg was taken at night. Yet before the EXIF data was scrubbed it showed the photos were taken over a 7 minute period. It went from light (1) to real dark (3) outside in 7 minutes if that is the case. So even the original set of EXIF data was likely manipulated.

One thing for sure - some of the photos were taken in the Obama Chicago Headquarters.

It is too bad that Jess Henig and Joe Miller (now working at the COB) will not grant interviews or discuss their ‘session’ with this most famous (or infamous) document.

Not just draw the conclusion. It was.

Simple. Take the gamma up on the photo. The large picture windows are in the background in the dark portion of the photo. There is no light coming in them and the glare of the overhead lights is reflecting in the windows. The overheads are in economy mode - not fully lite. It is in Obama’s Chicago HQ location.

So likely the photos were not taken in one ‘shoot’. The were taken at different times. The EXIF data may have been manipulated to make it look like one shoot. But when the date was months before Factcheck claimed it is it became a problem. The fix - repost the photos without the EXIF data.

Go ask Henig if this is all correct.

Oh yeah, she is not talking.

Question 1

If one has a baby at home, don’t they need to go to the hospital afterwards to have the baby checked out and to have the mother cleaned and taken care of?

Question 2 for butter

Did the person who saw the record without Obama take a picture of it?

I suggest you contact the AP reporter and ask him to get the records. I find it interesting that a AP reporter is looking into the birth index matter too, at this time. If they receive a record without Obama in it, it would be more credible than if you found it, providing he actually released same.

I can’t speak for the issue of whether it was day or night when the photos were taken. We do know the date in the EXIF data was about five months earlier than factlack dot org claimed to have taken the photos. The pictures were very careful not to show the entire back of the document, preventing anyone from being able to tell if signature block was actually on the same document as photographed from the front. The photo with the shadow of the arm through it is not only sloppy and unprofessional, but it doesn’t show any signs of the raised seal, while the other photos that contain the seal have a very artificial look about them. And, thanks to jpeg snoop software, the settings in the images don’t match the camera’s known compression settings, pointing to the possibility the images were manipulated after they were taken.

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.