“What about that the UIPA request, and the name “Steve Dunham” that was allegedly confirmed by HI as having been born on 8/4/1961?”
“In her official response received by email last night, Okubo denied that there is any index data for a vital record of a birth on August 4, 1961 for a “Steve Dunham.” It took her 90 days to figure out how to respond. And that in itself lets you, the reader, know what she meant to say: his name is “Steve Dunham”!”
This person says he did not get confirmation on a “Steve Dunham” vital record with the birth date of 8/4/61. Then the author goes on to say this official denial proves she was right - his name is “Steve Dunham.” I don’t understand why this is being discussed.
“I don’t understand why this is being discussed.”
You are so right - this is just stupid.
I am waiting for an enlightening explanation! There must be one.
" Like most requests for such information since the end of September when the Department began releasing such — following the threat of a lawsuit from another citizen-researcher — Okubo responds rather quickly with a denial that any such record or the information requested exists.
In this case, Okubo responded that she needed more time to respond!"
He goes on to state that it took 2 additional months for her to come back to say no index existed. He's questioning why she didn't answer negative in the first place.
Didn't Leo and/or MrsTickly get a similar run-around only to have a "final" answer of yes?