In response to my article, Flags in Hawaii, blogger Butterdezillion, takes me to task for a “rush” job and not getting the facts right in my critique of her page, Red Flags in Hawaii. This blog is all about getting the facts right, and I’m not about to leave misinformation floating about my articles. So let’s look at the criticism and see what’s what. So once again, into the fray (Butterdezillion’s comments indented and in italics). I will try to give some context so as to minimize the need to refer back to the two articles linked above, but you may have to go there eventually to follow everything.
The DOH did not have their Admin Rules posted until on or about Nov 5, 2009, so you were wrong about that.
As I pointed out in my original article (which BZ inexplicably missed) : “a commenter on this blog referred to them, [the Administrative Rules] including the hyperlink last May, 2009.” The May 2009 comment included citations from sections 11-120-2 and 11-120-4 of the rules. Now it’s simply impossible for someone to comment on a set of rules in May of 2009, cite their contents, and provide a hyperlink to them, if they were not posted until November. Another commenter on this blog mentioned and hyperlinked to the rules back in January of 2009! They were also in my research notes bookmarks (last updated March 14, 2009). So quit the foolishness. They’ve been on the State web site for at least a year and you could have found them easily.
Birth index includes name, gender, and type of event. It doesn’t include place of birth. Fukino’s statement was forbidden.
Again, you ignore what I wrote. Since ALL births in 1961 registered by the state were births in Hawaii, saying Barack Obama was born in Hawaii is logically the same thing as saying he was in the birth index. Since you claim to be familiar with the regulations concerning birth registrations, you know this is true (although you probably don’t have a copy of the regulations in effect in 1961 because they aren’t on the Internet). It is clear, at least to me, that Fukino was carefully avoiding disclosing anything beyond what was in the birth index, an index of persons born in Hawaii.
Nobody has to go to Hawaii to get a response to UIPA. This is so laughable it’s ridiculous. That’s why I was able to post dozens of UIPA responses.
In your email to the state (a hyperlink I followed) you cited HRS 92F-12 (a) (1) and the DoH’s refusal to comply with it. I correctly pointed out that HRS 92F-12 (a) (1) does not require the state to send you copies, only that the record be available for inspection at the agency office during normal business hours that there is a facility for you to copy them. There may be other regulations that require someone to send these to you, but the citation you relied upon requires public inspection at the DoH building. That is, your claim that the DoH’s actions were criminal is not factual. But of course, you could have gotten those particular regulations off the web if you had looked for them, and saved yourself and everyone else a lot of trouble.
I didn’t make up the fact that a denial of access to a record is confirmation of its existence. I gave the OIP Opinion Letters which specifically state this.
One reason I dismissed it out of hand is because of its logical absurdity. But let’s follow your sources and see what happens. I followed your so-called link to the OIP Interpretation. First, reading the OIP’s painfully blurry cover letter, I see: “The DOH’s interpretation of the UIPA and Section 338-18, H. R. S. are correct.” But where is the Interpretation itself? It’s not there. So much for following YOUR hyperlinks. Were you referring to the OIP Opinion you mention on another page? Or was it this OIP Opinion you linked to on another page? I certainly don’t know.
Until Butterdezillion properly states what the “interpretation” is and why this leads to the conclusion that Obama’s record was amended, there’s not much more that can be said.
The fact that Hawaii officials have said they don’t have to report known forgery is absolutely significant to anybody who cares about the law. If you find it insignificant it says something about you.
Context please. It is insignificant to this discussion because there was no forgery in the first place.
I gave the Administrative Rules which say that amended certificates lose their prima facie evidentiary value.
I was hasty, since the Obama COLB clearly states that it prima facie evidence. Indeed perhaps you “got a technical on me” on this one. The law (not administrative rule) leaves some opening to question a delayed or amended record. Again, this is moot because Obama’s record is neither delayed nor amended according to the COLB, and the lack of any evidence to the contrary.
They didn’t stop issuing long-form certificates in 2001. In fact, the revision to what they call a “Certificate of Live Birth” which excludes almost everything is dated October 2008. And you obviously didn’t follow the whole bit about rules changes requiring a public hearing and official approval. Sigh.
I refer readers back to my article from June 2009, Obama Birth Certificate Official, citing Janice Okubo’s remark that the Health Department went paperless in 2001. Okubo told the Honululu Advertiser newspaper:
The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.
And, it’s only available in electronic form.
Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.
It certainly seems clear to me that Okubo’s statement implies that the so-called long form stopped being issued in 2001. BZ refers to a “July 11 addendum” through a hyperlink. When I originally clicked on it, I assumed that the link was wrong since it didn’t go to any official source, but rather to the birther WorldNetDaily publisher Joseph Farah’s blog, the Western Journalism.com. The information on that page is from an anonymous person claiming to be a CIA investigator. Are you pretending that this is “fact” or “evidence”? This so-called report was investigated and found to be a fake, reported here back in July 2009 in my article: Clearing the smoke, or blowing more smoke?
HRS 338-17 says that the evidentiary value of an amended certificate is to be determined by an administrative or judicial body or person WHEN SUCH IS PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE. Fukino keeps the records; Obama doesn’t present his certificate to her as evidence.
I’m really not sure what you are saying here. Fukino is not an “administrative or judicial” body. There is no amended certificate in the first place. You really need to try to write complete thoughts.
And the presumption that the information contained on a certificate is true is what is meant by “prima facie evidence”. An amended record no longer counts as prima facie evidence. This means that the burden of proof is on the person who claims that what is on the certificate is true.
[Teach, don't start a paragraph with "and".] I’m still waiting for a cogent argument that there ever was an amended certificate. Your comment about “burden of proof” is not supported by the law.
The law clearly states that records created or maintained for the purpose of making information public MUST be disclosed. The DOH can say what it wants, but the law is the law. That is my whole point.
One may ask what your qualifications are to make this judgment, but I must point out that the letter you linked to from the OPI said that the DOH interpretation of the law was correct.
It wasn’t the invoices and receipts that the DOH destroyed. They destroyed the UIPA requests, which they are required to keep for 2 years. Again, you didn’t even get the basic facts of what I was saying correct.
Hold on there. If it wasn’t invoices that were destroyed, why did you title a section “The DOH has deleted documents required to be stored for at least 2 years.” and under it list “UIPA request or invoice.” Could you try to be less confusing in your writing? As to the substance of your complaint, since it consists solely of unverifiable non-public communications, it’s hard to respond to all the hypothetical possibilities. However, one cannot conclude that the UIPA requests (assuming they were properly filed) were destroyed. They just said there was nothing responsive (which may be because they didn’t find your request proper).
Within a week of Donofrio saying he would initiate OIP disciplinary proceedings against Fukino and Okubo the OIP director was offered a job by the semi-governmental company for which Fukino is a director. Those are the facts. You refuse to address them.
And did Donofrio initiate such a proceeding? I don’t remember that he did, so we can see just how serious that was. I can see no reason why Fukino would have the slightest concern about a crank like Donofrio saying saying on his blog that he was going to file some baseless complaint. Conspiracy theorists see connections in everything; there is nothing to address. Even Donofrio abandoned Terri K and this Hawaii witch hunt.
And my allegatons [sic] are true enough that the Ombudsman’s Office refused to investigate, saying that they can’t investigate crimes.
Say what? If you alleged crimes, then the response is “we don’t investigate crimes”. That is not confirmation that what you alleged was true (or a crime).
I’m sure you rushed through your “analysis”. As a teacher I can tell you that Bloom’s taxonomy matters. You can’t do decent analysis without a proper grasp of the facts. I suggest you go back through and make sure you get the facts straight and try again.
I think my rush job turned out pretty well.