The Great Birth Index Fiasco

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/the-great-birth-index-fiasco/ ^ | 09-22-10 | Butterdezillion

[butterdezillion]

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.

To summarize:

1. The HDOH is refusing to acknowledge that my request and money was in their office on the same day that Janice Okubo said they offer the 1961 birth index for $98.75. They claim that my request doesn’t exist even though they have already sent a copy of it to both Mark Niesse and myself, asked me to resend the e-mail request, and sent back the money order I included with the written request. Retention schedules require these requests to be saved for 2 years.

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?”

[butterdezillion]

Excellent summary.

[butterdezillion]

It’s too bad they’ve not been taken away in handcuffs and deposed, given that the HDOH has indirectly confirmed in 2 different ways that Factcheck is a forgery.

This whole mess could never have happened if we had an intact government, media, and law enforcement system. The people who allowed this fraud are just as bad as the people who actually committed it, because they have betrayed the trust of the people and of the Constitution.

[butterdezillion]

Question 1: Yes. My sister has had all but 2 of her 7 children at home, and after the birth she and the baby have both been seen by a doctor. Hawaii allowed 30 days for the baby to be examined by a doctor who would complete the BC if the birth was not attended. The CDC’s Natality Report in 1961 said that if a child was born in conveyance and taken to the hospital the birthplace was to be listed as the hospital and it was to be called an attended birth.

This is probably why Obama’s amendment to the BC is so critical. Besides making the BC legally invalid, it would also show that he was not seen by a Hawaii doctor within the first 30 days. Shows his claim of birth at Kapiolani a total fib, and begs the question of why he didn’t see a Hawaii doctor within the first 30 days. Also begs the question of what BC he’s been using his whole life, since he didn’t have a valid one from Hawaii that he could use.

Question 2: No, he didn’t get a picture of it. What the HDOH now shows in their office has Obama’s name on it. But there are several significant signs of tampering with the electronic file. I believe that what they show in their office is a report based on the 1960-64 birth index but with several records manipulated, and that they don’t want to release the real thing because they can’t get a page printed with all the validating marks that includes Obama’s name.

I also believe they are afraid to release the birth index because if more looking was done we would have the documentation we need in order to prove other various manipulations they have done with the records.

There are 2 documents I have received from the HDOH which have what I know now are signs of manipulation of the electronic record. In addition, they are supposed to be copies of pages from the 1960-64 birth index book and 1960-65 marriage index book but they have been taken from a 3-ring binder as evidenced by the marks on the copy. That tells me that they were not taken from the actual index books at their office, since those are 2-hole computer binders. It also tells me that they didn’t simply print out a one-time copy of a single page and send it off to me. The pages I requested were not for Obama and it is doubtful that they have gotten many, if any, other requests for those pages so there is no reason for them to keep a copy in a 3-ring binder because of the many requests they receive.

I’ve offered to keep Niesse informed on the issues, but he doesn’t seem willing to delve into it. Seems like his bosses wanted a puff piece for Obama’s birthday, nothing more.

[tutstar]

They are covering up Citizenship Fraud on a MASSIVE scale.

bingo!

[LorenC]

What the HDOH now shows in their office has Obama’s name on it. But there are several significant signs of tampering with the electronic file. I believe that what they show in their office is a report based on the 1960-64 birth index but with several records manipulated, and that they don’t want to release the real thing because they can’t get a page printed with all the validating marks that includes Obama’s name.

So let me see if I have this right. Your theory is that back at the first of October 2009, Janice Okubo sent this email about index data to Leo Donofrio:

From: Okubo, Janice S.
To: [email redacted]
Cc: Onaka, Alvin T.
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: Request for information

Aloha..,

Index data referred to in HRS 338-18 from vital records in the State of Hawaii is available for inspection at the
Department of Health's Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu . The Director in 
accordance with 338-18 (d) has not authorized any other data to be made available to the public.

In response to your request the following index data is being provided:

BIRTH INDEX
OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORING

CHILD
OBAMA II, BARACK HUSSEIN
GENDER
M

...and that despite the email saying that the data was "available for inspection" at the office, the HDOH was stupid enough in their cover-up that they actually forgot to create and print out a fake index with Obama's name on it. So according to you, anyone who visited and inspected the data between October 2009 and March 2010 would've found Obama's name missing. And yet no Birthers who visited the Department to verify this for the next five months noticed anything unusual.

Then "TsunamiGeno" supposedly took a trip to Hawaii in March 2010 and, according to "ladysforest," supposedly looked at the index data and didn't see Obama's name. Except that he didn't bring back any visual evidence of this. Nor did he just copy down any names off the page where 'Obama' *should* have been just to prove that he'd actually seen and inspected the correct page. Nor did he ever produce any evidence of the trip to Hawaii.

Then "TsunamiGeno" never reported publicly his discovery, until "ladysforest" finally posted about it four months later. And you, I take it, believe that the HDOH finally replaced the *real* index data with a *fake* index page containing Obama's name sometime after March 2010 (six months after they said it was available for inspection), but before the P&E researcher photographed the page with the name on it.

That about cover it?

[butterdezillion]

You’re just being stupid, Loren. Never produced any evidence of the trip? lol. You have no idea what evidence he produced of the trip. But ladysforest has produced images that he made from that trip - images from the library which DID allow copies to be made. You’re grasping at straws, trying to imply that this is all somehow very clandestine when it’s not.

My suspicion is that they have 2 copies of the 1960-64 birth index - one that has been manipulated and one that has not been manipulated so that if somebody like the Ombudsman came to inspect they could give the real one. I believe the worker accidentally gave TsunamiGeno the real one.

Ladysforest was wary of the HDOH having 2 copies in order to try to discredit “birthers”, which is why she didn’t immediately post what TsunamiGeno had found. She wanted to duplicate the result with another researcher first. She was very up-front about that in her blog. This is a woman of unimpeachable integrity. In my dealings with her I have only found her to be interested in finding the truth at whatever cost and regardless of what it ends up revealing. I cannot speak highly enough about the integrity of her research.

I cannot say the same for the HDOH. And their denial that they have my request - when I’ve got 4 communications from them proving otherwise - should settle that question once and for all.

Last I checked, it seemed like you were trying to justify their lies by saying that I am so pesky they wanted to get rid of me. You know what that is, Loren? That’s the rationale of dysfunction. The one who gets abused was always “asking for it”.

Get some help.

[Danae]

Q1) in 1961 it wasn’t terribly uncommon for babies to be born at home. There really were babies born in Hawaii that way. And no people might well have only had family members take care of the mother and baby if all went well. The state only required a “witness” signature along with that of the person registering the birth and bingo, birth certificate.

Q2) that is a question for Butter. I don’t have any info on that at all.

[LorenC]

Well, here's the photo with the contrast and brightness turned way up to draw out the background:

I see glass, obviously, but I also see no reason to believe that those are exterior windows, rather than glass partitions between internal offices. And there's absolutely nothing about the photo that says "nighttime" other than the lack of sunlight through those particular panes.

Seems to me these are just the claims of yet another pseudonymous Birther photographic "expert" with no credentials.

Frankly, it looks to me like the document is being held up to sunlight for illumination (since the camera didn't use a flash). That's certainly consistent with the sharp shadow on the carpet. And it's hard to tell, but it looks like there may be sunlit windows in the back of shot too.

[Danae]

Notice something really odd???

Not one of the after-birthers have commented on my posts?

Not one.

That’s because they can’t refute the obvious truth. Obama is merely taking advantage of Hawaii’s institutional fraud. And of course using it as leverage.

Where is the investigative reporting from 60 Minutes? Dateline? CNN? Fox?

(Crickets)

[edge919]

"The Director in accordance with 338-18 (d) has not authorized any other data to be made available to the public."

This statement should be troublesome to even the most strident faithers, sandheads or Obots. 338-18(d) says the director MAY make other data available. This part of the law protects her in the event she needs to make a judgment call, such as in case like this one where there is a tangible public interest to be served. Her reasons for not making data available aren't done to be 'in accordance' with this part of the statute. Second, by finally releasing this tidbit of index data, the HI DOH was caught in two lies. 1) They had originally said that statute 388-18 prevented them releasing ANY information contained on a birth record. Obviously this is false.

2) There's a lie of omission because researchers discovered this part of the law and realized it could be used to get information. Not once did spokesbabe Okubo nor director Fukino ever volunteer that they could release index information to the public prior to this. Fukino had released a statement a whole year earlier and a second statement in July 2009. Neither of these mentioned anything about index data.

The next problem, is that Fukino said in her July statement that unspecified vital records verifed Obama was born in Hawaii. On the basis of previous comments from the DOH in the meida, it should have been 'illegal' for her to make this public statement. However, under 338-18(d), if Obama really was born in Hawaii, that information would be protected for release through Fukino's discretionary authority, although she doesn't say this was the basis for her July 2009 statement. What is unknown is whether the place of birth contained in the index data matches what she said or if that information came from separate, but legally unverifiable nonbirth records or supplementary materials. Regardless, there's no reason spokesbabe Okubo couldn't have added a place of birth to the index data that was released in the e-mail you quoted.

The biggest problem with the index data issue, thanks to a discovery made by butterdezillion, is that an earlier version of statute 388-18(d) specifically allows for the release of the file number as part of the index data. That number has been requested, and inversely, index data associated with file number 151 1961 10641 has been requested, but both requests have been unlawfully denied. If Obama's alleged factlack dot org COLB were genuine, this one piece of index data provides a quick, simple and LEGAL way for the HI DOH to confirm the authenticity of Obama's alleged COLB. Instead they refuse. Why keep it secret when they don't have to??

[edge919]

There's certainly a secondary light source in that photo - enough to cause the photographer's arm to cast a shadow through the middle of the document (talk about an idiot photographer). She or he should have noticed her shadow prior to taking the photo and moved into a better position.

It's also strange that the person holding the document is not holding up straight for the photographer, but at angle, to the photographer's right. This would suggest that someone else behind this photographer may have been taking a picture at the same time. That person's camera flash could have fired and caused the shadow. Flash tends to cause hard shadows like this more than sunlight does. If this were sunlight, especially from behind you, you would expect the rest of the room to have a little more natural light.

[mojitojoe]

Before he became president, Lingle was not supportive or friendly towards Odumbo. In fact she insinuated some things in an interview. She said that nobody in Hawaii had ever heard of him and that he only went to school there for a couple of years, something like that. I’ll have to find the interview.

[mojitojoe]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2110625/posts

[mojitojoe]

All I gave them for my name was “Nellie”. They have my contact information because it is the name on my e-mail account. Because their e-mailing program reveals the name on the account they were able to get my last name. I did not give them that. They extracted it by virtue of me having an e-mail address.
________________
Why would you use your real name for an email address. I have several email addresses and they all have fake names on them.

[mojitojoe]

Private investigators have been in Hawaii off and on for well over a year. The evidence they have gotten will never be seen here on FR or anywhere else on the internet. You have no idea what they have, who else has it and when it will be used.

[mojitojoe]

BS!! Total BS. Not all birthers are members of the Orly fan club. I can assure you of that.

[mojitojoe]

Not me, I wouldn’t bet on the fact that he didn’t. After all, she is a Democrat.

[mojitojoe]

First of all, you should use a fake name when you set up an email address. Something like Ricky Ricardo or Whatsit Toyou.

[mojitojoe]

Loren does it because he is a huge Obongo supporter.

[mojitojoe]

You couldn’t pay me to use Outlook Express for my emails. Get a damn secure email account. Hushmail is free. Use it and use the encryption.