TerriK INVESTIGATION: The Post and Email Blog Features Important Related Story – “Is Fukino’s office in open rout?”

This was saved from google cache. Some of the links don’t work. I believe it is important to preserve some of Leo’s great work for future reference and study.

TerriK INVESTIGATION: The Post and Email Blog Features Important Related Story – “Is Fukino’s office in open rout?”

[UPDATED: As of 9:59 PM Oct 09. 2009 Leo C. Donofrio does not endorse anything written by Mr. Charlton or his blog. Full explantion here.]

John Charlton of The Post and Email blog has an important follow up report pertaining to the TerriK Investigation out today:
Is Fukino’s office in open rout?

September 30, 2009 by John Charlton

by John Charlton

(Sept. 30, 2009) — Recent public revelations by Attorney Leo Donofrio, that the office of Dr. Chiyome L. Fukino, the Director of the Department of Health for the State of Hawaii, has a policy of obstructing and misdirecting citizens’ requests for information, in violation of Hawaiian Statutes, seems to have led to confusion and rout in the office of the director.

Attorney Donofrio has detailed the requests of TerryK in July, and her subsequent requests in September (part 1 & 2). The Post & Email has also reported the request made last week by another citizen for index data & redacted records, which was also analysed by Attorney Donofrio.

An analysis of the responses received from Janice S. Okubo, Communications Director at the Department of Health, indicates there is panic in the director’s office.

First, there are notable inconsistencies of response, ranging from misdirecting citizens who make requests, to outright denials that the laws allow what they allow; to interpretations of departmental policies as being more binding tha[n] Hawaii Statutes.

Second, when the second citizen fired back a letter of complaint, in response to the denial by Janice Okubo, it appears that two of the officials in the Director’s Office who received it — Katherine P. Kealoha and Noemi Pendleton — conveniently fled the office, setting their email programs to “auto reply”, with messages that they would be out of the office for some days. Unwittingly, however, these auto-responders have confirmed that the correspondence was received by Janice Okubo; who as of this report, has continued to refuse to reply to the citizen’s legitimate request…

(click here to continue reading full report….)

I left the following comment:

naturalborncitizen Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Great Job on this. You should also know that the UIPA and case law is very clear that the response given to your reader on that form is improper…

§2-71-14 (c)(3)

(3) The request requires the agency to create a summary or compilation of information from records that is not readily retrievable.


But read the UIPA at….



(c) Unless the information is readily retrievable by the agency in the form in which it is requested, an agency shall not be required to prepare a compilation or summary of its records.”

You see that, if the information is readily retrievable then they can’t rely on that provision. This was also discussed in the Hawaii Supreme Court case


83 Haw. 378; 927 P.2d 386; 1996 Haw. LEXIS 156; 154 L.R.R.M. 2373

“In a related argument, the City, relying on HRS § 92F-11(c), asserts that the circuit court committed reversible error by ordering the City to create a roster of disciplined employees. The City’s argument is patently meritless. HRS § 92F-11(c) provides that “unless the information is readily retrievable by the agency in the form in which it is requested, an agency shall not be required to prepare a compilation or summary of its records.” The circuit court’s order granting summary judgment, as modified by its June 16, 1994 order, [***51] states that “the HPD may either produce a summary of the information requested or produce all documents pertaining to the subject matter, using whichever method of disclosure the HPD deems more expedient.” (Emphases added.) Clearly, the City was not ordered to create a “roster.” Accordingly, we discern no error. ”

They used this same tactic against TerriK, but on that form they were so very devious by checking two boxes. They checked the denial box for her entire list of requests…and that would mean they had the documents but are not allowing access. And they also checked the box for the list/summary thing. That response is not a denial of access, it’s a denial that they have the means to retrieve the records requested.

Nice report. This isn’t right. I have UIPA requests pending as well. Will publish those soon.

(Leo what happened to your UIPA requests. Did you let anyone know the outcome. You have informed us and encouraged us to be pro active and work to reveal the fraud obama. Yet you have deleted your good work and left us all out to dry. Why?)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: