Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Is Obama's Hawaiin birth records confidential?

We have seen the democrats in their support when it comes to Obama holding his Hawaiin birth records from the public. Those who have say that he has the legal right to keep his documents private irregardless of his Public office.

The Democrats also rely that the COLB that the Obama web had posted is the real deal and that the officials at the Hawaii dept of vital statistics have held 2 separate press conferences that support the COLB (though the press releases did not say whether the long form was actually foreign).

Voila -- case closed! No further documentation required and by the way anyone from that day forward that brings lawsuits suggesting otherwise wear tin foil "birther" hats!


A lawsuit is now pending to be filed, in the State of Hawaii to disclose the documents that the supported the "public statement" by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health in July 2009. Foul cries Robair. Another birther with a tin foil cap!


It seems that once an official compiles information from their files that support a public statement, as Fukino did in July, then any person has the right, under Hawaiin law to demand the information that was relied upon for the statement to be released.

Hawaii revised statutes:


STANDING - (a personal favorite for liberal activist Judges to deny birther lawsuits rather than merits)

under the statute. The UIPA manual states:

Any person” may make a request for government records under part II, the Freedom of Information section of the UIPA. “Person” is defined broadly to include an individual, government agencies, partnerships and any other legal entities.

Under part II, a government agency generally may not limit access to public records based on who the requester is or the proposed use of the record.

Section 92F-12(15) states that the following must be released to the public:

(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;

On July 27, 2009 Hawaii Department of Health Director Fukino issued a press release which stated:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

The Plaintiff (person bringing the De Novo proceeding) is known as "TerriK" at this point.

TerriK requested all information “collected and maintained” for the purposes of preparing the public statement made by Director Fukino as such information must be released according to the statute.

TerriK was interested in knowing how Director Fukino came to the conclusion that the President was a natural born citizen. She was familiar with Section 92F-12(15) which demands that all information collected and maintained for the purposes of making such a public statement be made public. She was denied that information despite the clear wording in the statute. Furthermore, the case law from Hawaii clearly demands production of the records TerriK requested.

Furthermore, Hawaii officials - upon denying TerriK access to information requested – were required by statute to inform her of a right to appeal by trial de novo in Hawaii circuit court. They failed to provide such guidance to her. Section 92F-15.5(cool.gif states:

(cool.gif… If the denial of access is upheld, in whole or in part, the office of information practices shall, in writing, notify the person of the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the right to bring a judicial action under section 92F-15(a). [L 1989, c 192, §1]

The OIP failed to notify TerriK of her right to a judicial appeal. Instead, the OIP simply told her that the decision to deny access was correct and that they could not help her any further.

§92F-15 Judicial enforcement.

(a) A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure.

(cool.gif In an action to compel disclosure the circuit court shall hear the matter de novo. Opinions and rulings of the office of information practices shall be admissible. The circuit court may examine the government record at issue, in camera, to assist in determining whether it, or any part of it, may be withheld.

© The agency has the burden of proof to establish justification for nondisclosure.

Please take note of subsection © above. The burden of proof is on the agency to establish justification for nondisclosure.

With respect to information collected by Director Fukino for purposes of making her July 27, 2009 press release (and other public statements), the burden cannot be overcome since the statute demands that such information be made public.

Please note that the information contained above came from Leo Donofrio, who brought one of the first legal challenges to Obama's eligibility to be president and unsuccessfully tried to get the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved at the time of the election.


No comments:

Post a Comment