Posted on 02/19/2010 9:27:00 AM PST by butterdezillion
Just curious have you ever requested a copy of Barack Obama, Sr. and Stanley Ann Durham’s Marriage License/Certificate?
Should be easy to get since both are dead.
If the law says that people are entitled to what they are requesting, then providing it is wasting time. It's called "Doing Their Job".
The way I read it, as long as a person shows two different behaviors. So, for instance, if I asked the identical request as somebody else and then I appealed their answer I have exhibited vexatiousness and they could refuse to ever answer any other questions from me.
I wonder if someone who is guilty of vexatiousness in one agency can be denied freedom of access for other agencies. So, for instance, if I was found guilty of vexatiousness for requests to DOH if that means that I couldn’t ask to see records from my speeding ticket, for example (made up example. lol)
Will they have a master blacklist?
IOW: Are some animals more equal than others?
Professionals such as Okubo actually are tasked with accountability for their resources
Okubo is a public relations person, not a "professional" except at being a PR flack.
And the truth of the matter is that if they had been honest from the get-go about what is allowable and what not, they could have been saved a bunch of requests from me.
But even now they aren’t comprehending that what has already been made public holds no privacy concern, or that their RULES are what authorizes disclosure from actual certificates, or that “public health vital records” (which includes) the processing are not even referred to in HRS 338-18A.
Half of my requests were just to figure out how the heck to make sense out of their responses, which didn’t match any of what I was reading from the laws or (when they finally posted them as required by law) the rules.
I’ve actually sent very few requests lately. After seeing that they don’t give a rip what their laws and rules say, and realizing that they are not even being truthful in the answers they DO give at this point, there’s little point in asking them any more. At this point what I’m after is a full legal investigation.
Espero wants asking for an investigation to be an illegal “vexatious” action.
That really says it all, I think.
They didn’t even read past the first point of her requests.
But hey, I guess 25% is a passing grade these days.
Yes, I have. They won’t do it, even though their own rules say anybody who wants can get a non-certified copy of a marriage certificate for anybody they want even if everybody is still alive.
They say that HRS-338 trumps the Administrative Rules. But 338-18a says that prohibitions on disclosures only apply to disclosures not authorized by law or DOH rules. Their rules say disclosure of a non-certified copy of a marriage certificate, abbreviated birth certificate, and death certificate is authorized for anybody who asks for it.
So there is no trumping. HRS 338-18a defers to the Administrative Rules.
“But systems of rules are rational and designed to facilitate rational requests, not the inexhaustible rationalizations of conspiracy theorists.”
Blather.
They answered my questions to my satisfaction. Again, you don’t know wtf you are talking about.
I have given the DOH the exact citations of their rules and the laws showing that I AM entitled to what I’ve asked for.
Some things I’ve learned that I’m not entitled to. For instance, they can’t tell me whether or not there is a doctor’s signature on the original birth certificate because that is information from the certificate itself and so HRS 338-18a applies to it. Release of the long-form to me is not authorized by the rules, nor is that particular information authorized to be disclosed so that information is forbidden to be disclosed.
Birth place is another item that is forbidden to be disclosed. Funny how that didn’t stop Fukino from making a public statement about it...
They CAN (and did) reveal to me, however, that no doctor’s signature was offered as evidence for an amendment - because a doctor’s signature offered for an amendment would be on an affidavit, not on the birth certificate itself. In that case, their answers eventually helped me understand the distinction they were making but refused to acknowledge they were making.
In other cases, the distinctions they’ve made are totally wrong. The certificate number, for instance, is authorized to be disclosed not only because it would be on the non-certified abbreviated birth certificate which is authorized to be released to me, but also because it was required to be disclosed as index data before UIPA was passed and so it is grandfathered in.
But I didn’t learn those nuances from the DOH, who gave blatantly deceptive and untruthful answers all along. I learned that because I read, and read, and read, and read - the OIP Opinion Letters, the laws, the rules, and the specific responses they gave me. If the DOH had told it straight from the very beginning they would never have had this mess.
But then, they would have also had their rules posted and a secretary of state could have seen a certified copy of the original birth certificate. And we would not have Barack Obama as president today.
Actually, the UIPA currently provides(ed) you can request any government document, including receipts and invoices from an amendment made to Obama’s birth certificate, which is what I requested.
All I wanted was one of these answers:
a) They have the record and I could have a copy
b) They have the record and I couldn’t have a copy because it is protected by state law
c) They have no such record
They responded with ‘b).’ They answered my question beautifully, eh?
Why didn’t they respond with ‘c)?’
So....now THE Hawaii legislature is modifying that law to suit THEIR needs.
And you call ME the abuser? Please.
“That’s exactly the point that was explicitly made. These people are not entitled to what they’re asking for.”
There is no answer d.
Well, actually there is an answer d. It is a Glomar response, which is to be used when the very existence of a record cannot be revealed. (”The records, if any, are protected from disclosure.” But receipts don’t rise to that level of protection from disclosure and the DOH and OIP both know it. That’s why they gave b as an answer rather than d.
They never gave answer b. I’ve read all your stuff and Miss Tickley’s and no such answer was ever given once.
That is a complete fiction on both your parts.
Ender, the OIP letter from Linden Joesting stated outright that the DOH’s answer was a denial of access. That is the answer b.
Denying this is ingenuous on your part. Are you calling Linden Joesting a liar?
Furthermore, if you look at the protocols used in a different case when an agency denied access to a document that didn’t actually exist, the OIP assumed that if access is denied the document exists and therefore asked the agency for the document so they could determine whether the denial was justified. The final opinion letter said that there was not even a UIPA answer to be made to the request because the document requested doesn’t exist.
If Joesting followed that protocol to see if access to the document was rightly denied, that means she saw the records for herself and stated that they were rightly denied. And she had just told MT that if the records didn’t exist the DOH had to say so.
I really enjoy a good debate with people who are willing to engage with the facts. But if you will deny the facts right in front of your face, the discussion can only be a boor.
WiggOut works for Obama who punches the troll clock putting in his day’s work as a troll.
You are an amazing, greasy *sshole to pretend you have the tiniest clue of anything.
Listen here you POS-troll. I have two emails from Linden Joesting, attorney at the OIP, advising me that Fukino MUST tell me if the records did not exist.
She told me twice. Do you understand, moron?
BUT, Fukino did not tell me that. She said I could not have the records because they are protected by state law.
You got that you lousy, filthy piece of garbage?
So I appealed that decision with the OIP. Are you keeping up you spineless, koolaid drinking f*ckhole?
Linden Joesting was assigned to rule on my appeal and she upheld the DOH decision not to release the records.
I know, I know, you can’t believe it’s real. IT IS, you brainless obot, POS, skankhole, troll.
If all you have is your opinion, save it for your koolaid boards.”
My, my. Such language from a lady.
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.