Posted on 03/11/2010 10:21:48 AM PST by butterdezillion
I've added to my blog a post showing that OIP Attorney Linden Joesting, when asked point-blank on Feb 22nd whether Miss Tickly's understanding that Obama's BC was amended is correct, refused to correct MT's understanding. After 2 days of asking for clarification on the question, she responded 3 days later by saying she didn't have time to answer the question.
The legal meaning of the denial of access, which has been documented through multiple consistent sources, stands. It would have taken no more time for Joesting to say that MT misunderstood than to say she ddn't have time to answer the question. The OIP wants to ignore the question because the answer would confirm the fact of Obama's amended BC.
The link to the article will be in the 1st reply to the initial post.
Right. And I want to make sure that everybody understands it is not Joesting who came up with that cop-out answer. She is being gagged. She was checking it out and then somebody (almost certainly OIP Director Cathy Takase) stopped her.
And it was interesting to me that Joesting listed 2 subjects that MT was supposed to say whether she had current appeals on: Obama’s BC and amendments to Obama’s BC. That leaped out at me that she sorted it into 2 subjects, almost as if the cue is that if somebody has asked about those 2 subjects they’re to be given the “vexatious requestors” treatment even before the law is passed.
There’s a lot of doo-doo going on in that office.
But I want everyone to be clear that I do not blame Joesting’s answer on Joesting. She was told what she had to do, and it was the opposite of what she of her own accord had already started to do.
Can you make a UIPA request to the OIP office for any interoffice records instructing Joesting how to respond to MT’s requests?? That would be a kick in the pants.
I am interested in the post, so thanks for sharing.
Eligibility Ed, or perhaps it was Edie, was up early this morning. I went to bed last night and all was fine. This morning, my firewall and security was off and everything was so slow it was timing out, pausing, and then finally freezing. I really doubt the cat turned it off. Thing is, I haven’t emailed or been vexatious to HI or the WH or anyone, so why I’d be of interest is beyond me. But I did suspect “someone” (tinfoil within arm’s reach) was messing with it shortly before others started talking about the same happening to them.
Thank you for the post. There are plenty of FReepers who are interested in this information. (I remember when our numbers were very few in 2008. That is no longer the case.) Obama has to depend on many people in many locations to continue to cover for him. It is only a matter of time before the truth is forced into the light.
Didn’t you say that Joesting could (if she wanted to) look at Obama’s record? I’m not feeling a whole lot of sympathy for her at the moment. She has the law on her side and she is going along with the lawbreakers.
If Obama is the fraud we all believe him to be then all these people are aiding and abetting a crime of gargantuan proportions.
Some whistle blower is going to be the first to save their own skin. The rest will have lost their chance to redeem themselves.
Was that Eric Massa's code name? ;-)
I think the state of Hawaii is too invested in the cover up now to admit what they might know. I’m pretty sure they assumed a couple of ambiguous public statements from Chiyome Fukino would resolve any questions. They obviously didn’t expect anyone to start nailing them on their own laws and procedures. They’ve got to the point of no return where they have to evade all requests, else they expose themselves as incompetents or perhaps as conspirators.
If info under wraps, let it remain so.
Some interoffice records are protected from disclosure, although I think that’s only when an action is being deliberated and not for an action that’s already been taken.
They pretty much know not to communicate through written means though - except when it’s to a different agency, in which case they have sometimes accidentally left the inter-agency communications on the e-mail histories. I believe that’s how it was shown that the vital records head told Okubo to lie because he had found out online that the requestor wasn’t pro-Obama.
Well it appears the the OIP is complicit too. Isn’t their whole existence and function to stop this exact type of corruption?
This problem with Word started in mid-stream. If you look at the March archive you can see that I posted a clearer version of Joesting’s official OIP Appeal Response to MT in preparation for linking to it in the main post I posted today. Sometime between when I posted that clearer version and when I tried to post the main post Word suddenly developed a problem. I tried 6 or 7 times to post from Word and it always encountered a problem.
I sure hope you’re right, Faith. I hope this is forced into the light. I think we’re making headway, slowly but surely.
I never thought of whether Joesting could get into a witness protection program and blow this thing open. I think that’s what it would take. If there was actually a serious possibility that the crimes would be investigated it could force people in Hawaii to draw some lines in the sand.
Sigh. That’s why we have to have law enforcement.
Right now Senator Slom is smelling like a rose. He is the one person who voted against the “Vexatious Requestor Bill” in committee and on the Senate floor.
I sent him an e-mail this morning to thank him and to ask him to read my “Red Flags” article which I would like to submit as “late” testimony regarding that bill - to provide a factual history of how this issue has developed.
I requested a “Read” receipt for my e-mail but haven’t gotten anything back. Of course, in Hawaii it’s only mid-morning now.
The 150 people whom I pinged understand the Post/article perfectly well; you just haven’t been keeping up.
Exactly. The committee summary in forwarding the “Vexatious Requestor Bill” to the full Senate talked about the “impartial” OIP having the task of being fair in labeling people “vexatious requestors”.
I pointed out to Senator Slom in my e-mail to him this morning that everybody who testified in support of the bill (except the Taxation Dept rep who submitted late testimony) has actually been implicated in wrong-doing in my “Red Flags” article. This bill is giving the wolf the sole, unappealable role of guarding the henhouse.
Joesting has never said the she has seen Obama’s records right? She just has the ability to (if she wanted to) ...correct?
I’m sure at this point she doesn’t want to know.
Thanks for pinging. I always wonder whether my explanations are clear enough and effective. I welcome any input that will help me make it the best it can be.
Especially if people who are interested but haven’t followed the story have any suggestions for how I can make it clearer, that would be greatly appreciated. Those are the people we have to reach. We need to be able to say it in a way they can understand. I’ve tried to use the main “Red Flags” article as something people can understand without diving into all the ins and outs but I wonder if it’s understandable to people who come in brand new.
I had my sister and a couple of friends read it shortly after I posted it and they said they had a hard time keeping track of the names and departments. I’m not sure how to make it clearer without making it a LOT longer - longer than most people would be willing to read.
If Joesting used the same procedure as was used in previous OIP appeals for denial of access to records, she would have looked at the records to see whether the information in them was discloseable. It could be that the DOH wouldn’t even allow her to do that - in which case they were already treating Obama’s case differently from the very start with Joesting.
So we don’t know if Joesting has seen them or not. If she’s followed the protocol (if the DOH allowed her to) she should have seen them though.
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.