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.
“If she’s followed the protocol (if the DOH allowed her to) she should have seen them though.”
The plot thickens.
There are many who are interested, and since they have been following this, understand its significance.
I realize some people on FR want to deride, scorn, belittle, distract and so on whenever the topic of 0bama’s eligibility is talked about, but such people are in a tiny minority. More people on FR and in the world in general are waking up to the fact that there is something/s that 0bama is hiding, and wondering why.
I should clarify that the records Joesting should have seen are the invoices and receipts that MT asked for. She probably hasn’t seen the actual BC.
But Tsukiyama should have seen any supplementary documents to Obama’s birth certificate if he followed protocol in deciding whether the DOH’s denial of access to those documents was proper.
That denial of access was before the denial that Leo first posted on his blog, and the OIP did not include that request or denial when they responded to a UIPA request for all the UIPA appeals within that time period.
Certainly there are indeed.
Hawaii is between a rock and a hard place for sure. The squirming is annoying, but at the same time laughably funny.
He is working on the Chrysler case. I don’t think he is following this issue at all right at this time.
bump
When you run for president, your origins are public information because of the NBC clause.
This is not going away until Hawaii opens its files.
It is disgusting and insulting that a president would hide his documents of origin, flouting the NBC clause of our constitution.
What you mention in this post is why you don’t see this story get picked up the press (hope you’re reading this Miss Tickly!) and why conservative talk radio hasn’t got too involved either. You have to really study the laws, the people and comprehend a lot of details. It’s not rocket science, of course, but it’s too complicated for a general audience. Overall, though, I think you’ve done as good a job as anyone else I’ve seen, given the complexities and cast of characters.
Joesting’s reply to Miss Tickly’s request for clarification:
Ms. (redacted),
Since we have so many requests for assistance on matters pending before agencies, I am reluctant to take the time away from those cases to answer your questions.
Please accept my regrets as I am trying to complete pending requests for assistance.
Sincerely,
Linden Joesting
Staff Attorney
Yep! Ever had your mouse pointer jump to the other side of the screen only to check your firewall and find out someone is trying to get in?
If info under wraps, let it remain so.
He won't. At least not for a very long time. His current interests are with the Chrysler bankruptcy case which could take years to finally resolve. He won't move on any QW, or further HI investigations unless his clients either win the bk case (might go back to HI research), or they loose and direct Leo (& Steve?) in that direction (QW). He's stated that he's proceeding with his clients best interest's in mind.
I’ve had slooooooow downs too.
obumpa
Exactly.
Go to Tools->Options and turn off the "check for nonsense" and "what the hell are you talking about" features.
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.
Please be aware, that there is a very good possibility that he could read your email, and you would not receive a read receipt returned. My guess, in a situation like this, he would elect not to send you one...or may even be using an email client that doesn't support that feature.
*Courtesy ping* to humblegunner
Oh yeah!
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.