Orly is working FOR Obama?

THIS IS A SHAM. You knew the following BEFORE you filed your recent debacle in court. I know, I wrote and told you so did another poster:

This is not a good pursuit of things as it could result in placing The President's VITAL RECORDS under court seal, keeping, We, the People, who have Oversight of the agency, who has the Oversight of the records from legally viewing them per UIPA Provisions (§92F-12) (3) (15).

This is a legal and responsible route to pursue the documents. I have done so and asked that ’significant privacy information’ per exceptions found in (§92F-13(1) be omitted from the records. As lawyer, Orly knows this is true.

The ’significant privacy information’ per Obama’s Vital Records are these: DOB & Ethnicity

Place of birth, hospital, address at the time of birth, weight, etc.. ARE NOT considered ’significant privacy information’ per by the UIPA open records law in Hawaii and most states in America as far as I can tell.

These provisions in context of Fukino’s TWO public statements and the current political climate MANDATE that disclosure of his VITAL RECORDS serves the Public. (§92F-12) (3) (15)

UIPA STATUTE Part II: “To balance the individual privacy interest and the public interest, allowing access unless disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Given this direction that the UIPA be interpreted to promote open government, any doubt regarding disclosure of a record should likely be resolved IN FAVOR OF ACCESS.”

Orly, I believe, is working for OBAMA. Please urge her to step off, she's not helping the cause for truth. I suspect it is entirely intentional, too. She's a lawyer and knows about the Hawaiian OPEN RECORDS LAW. Yet, she hasn't tried to pursue it? There are TWO provisions that call for the public disclosure--she KNOWS THIS.

Think about it--where has she found all the resources to keep pursuing this when others have not? Has she ever helped this cause so far--in terms of GETTING ANSWERS?

On a whim I decided to try my hand at a question for Janice Okubo, Communications Director for the Department of Health that holds the President’s vital records. Believe me when i say I have not sought an answer to the ‘birther’ question in any formal way ever before this day. I emailed her and I asked her about AMENDED original birth certificates, something which by sheer existence alone, usually (not always) indicates a person was ADOPTED:

Director Fukino made this statement (Oct 2008): ““Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures… ” Therefore, she has the statutory authority to answer this question:

“Is the Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, able to state they have verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has President Barack Obama’s AMENDED original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures?” Please reply with her answer.”

You see, they have the same statutory authority over an Amended Original Birth Certificate that they have over an (unamended) Original Birth Certificate. No one has to attest to an Amended Original Birth Certificate’s existence or have ‘tangible interest’ in the record. By virtue of STATUTORY AUTHORITY alone she can answer my question, AND she clearly says so.

But, to my surprise, at 11:47 p.m. on Monday, July 27, 2009 I got an electronic press release with a new statement, the first in EIGHT months with the ‘natural born citizen’ stuff people have been talking about all week:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii 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.”

I had this sent directly to me by Janice Okubo, herself, in response to my emailed question. And I suspect I had it hours before the press had it. I searched Google for any reference to this statement. None. Not even FactCheck.org had it.

Of course, since they are able to drive the story through the media they needlessly added the stuff about being ‘natural born’ and ‘born in Hawaii’ to the answer to my question and to detract from the affirmative answer to my question and to fit their agenda. It was the headline on Yahoo! by the following morning.

“original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures...”

This was too vague for my taste, so I asked for clarity. So, I asked specifically if the Director would make a statement that she has the STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE: “As Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, I have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has President Barack Obama’s AMENDED original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” But I got this in return: “The director has nothing further to add to her statements.”

I let Ms. Okubo know that I fear something is preventing Dr. Fukino from making statements she does have the authority to make. Duress? And told her I was compelled to tell someone. I did, I sent an email to two major networks.

ANYWAY: Knowing in my heart why they made that statement on Monday, I pressed on. I looked at the UIPA Open Records Act in Hawaii and found ANYONE can make a request--not just Hawaiians. So using the question I’d already asked, I filed a UIPA Information Request.

Then I thought about it some more. The way I worded it felt wrong and it seemed like an inappropriate way to use the UIP Act and I withdrew it immediately and telling them I didn’t have the stomach for it.

Then I went back and read the UIPA Guidelines thoroughly and found the provision(s) that require the RESPONSIBLE disclosure of ALL OBAMA’S VITAL RECORDS citing not one, but TWO provisions. I want you to read my formal request and the follow up statements I sent. Read them in the order I have listed them, which is backward in chronological order beginning with today’s follow up. I think they read better that way. They have 10 days to respond, and I have recourse beyond The Dept. of Health noncompliance if that’s the case. I can re-file with the Hawaii Office of Information Practices for thier ruling.

None of this LEGITIMATE EFFORT will make a difference if Orly pursues this. She is a lawyer, she knows I have followed UIPA Guidelines per Hawaii's Open Records Law and that I have made a case for disclosure.

I feel I must expose this, and I am sorry if anyone disgrees but this has become apparent to me.

Perhaps you have read posts on the web by other folks claiming to be lawyers that they sympathize with her effort and have privately attempted to give her advice, but she chooses not to take the advance and sometimes ends up doing something embarrassing.

To a certain extent, this is one of the pitfalls of being a legal David against a legal Goliath. Sometimes things happen. We are all human and all humans make mistakes at one time or another.

At times, many people succumb to the dangers of wishful thinking and hasty decisions.

This is possibly why most major legal cases are conducted using lawyer teams. Certainly Obama has a formal paid lawyer team representing him. It is unlikely that one Obama lawyer would make a statement or file a motion without the statement or motion being reviewed by many other paid lawyers in the team. Anything wishful or ill-advised would tend to be screened out in the reviews. Obama has lots of money with which to buy the services of lots of lawyers who only need to read and review carefully the advance versions of statements and filings by other lawyers. Maybe this is why the saying in law schools and courthouses is that he who has the most money usually wins.

As to the UIPA, if one looks at the web, there are some folks who regard it as one of the weaker variants of state level FOIAs in the country. FIOAs were passed in the mid 1970’s after Watergate and the federal FIOA was passed. Ever since, bureaucrats have been chipping away at the lower that the public-enabling laws initially granted, usually with some success.

As a result many researchers and many bureaucrats have gradually grown accustomed to viewing FIOAs and FIOA requests as no longer very serious in nature. To be serious, one has to dot i’s and cross t’s and in extreme cases be willing to take the departments and officers involved to court, and even then the laws have been weakened by subsequent laws and lax caselaw decisions that tend to favor the bureaucrats over the public at large. We can recognize this as a symptom of entrenched bureaucracy protecting its power, but it is also an expectable realistic outcome in a sense.

Lawyers (BTW IANAL) to my awareness do not use FIOAs to get at vital records. The laws protecting privacy tend to modeled after California’s, which was passed after a Hollywood actress was slashed after a stalker looked up her address courtesy of the California DMV in the 1990s. Either independently or as a result, or as a result of subsequent case law (probably less common), state FOIAs and state privacy laws tend to act in concert to prevent such incidents from happening again. In any case lawyers tend to use FOIAs as a last resort and don’t rely on them— subpoenas tend to work a lot better and have a lot more legal enabling force behind them.

Also I have been told behind the scenes that the Hawaii Department of Health records were always in questionable shape and late to be converted to electronic format relative to the records of other states’ departments of health. This translates to considerably more uncertainty in preservation of and access to such records. From there it is relatively easy to begin to understand the situation of the bureaucrats at the Hawaii Department of Health. They feel they are under siege by rude out-of-state birthers on the one hand and the actual records may be a legacy of shambles on the other hand, but they would be ill advised to admit that to anyone in public or private since it would reflect poorly on the department and the state as well as on their self-worth.

At any rate IMHO Orly has probably done a significant amount of damage to the Obama image and thrown a lot of his statements and actions in an unfavorable public light. IMHO Obama is not looking for this kind of publicity and would be ill advised to draw attention to his own legal and personal shortcomings in the way that the vital records issue has in the past year. Someone might actually discover something that does not fit the Obama mythos and that would be a PR disaster for Obama.

So I personally am not very concerned that Orly is working in concert with Obama. I am also very hesitant to rely on the use of the Hawaii UIPA for anything that could potentially be viewed as personal information (and sometimes even beyond because of entrenched bureaucratic disdain and disregard for such laws).

Against a powerful foe, it is easy to fall prey to the temptation to attack allies as potential double agents the moment they display alleged weakness. It may be better to take a deep breath and let things cool for a while. Obama’s overt allies form a potentially target rich environment. Rather than expend one’s energies on a hunch that one of Obama’s detractors is a double agent, it may be more productive to focus one’s excess energy on on another of Obama’s overt allies. Meanwhile people who work together for a common effort may want to maintain effective teamwork by viewing the actions of others in a favorable light whenever possible.

Just my $0.02... :-)

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.