Posted on 05/18/2010 8:41:44 AM PDT by butterdezillion
Thank you for your hard work! I pray for your safety.
Those Hawaiian officials are lower than sewer mold!
Records pertaining to the Department of Health database for vital statistics information:Records pertaining to the Department of Health database for vital statistics information are not required to be disclosed by the Uniform Information Practices Act because those records, by their very nature, must be confidential in order for the government to avoid the frustration of a legitimate government function (see HRS §92F-13(3)). Disclosing such information compromises the department’s ability to protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system as is required by HRS §338-18.
Good point. Which would then, clearly, make him ineligible and no doubt the reason why the SCOTUS is evading the issue. They don’t want to have to rule on it because if they did, they would have to find that a person born a citizen of the U.S. and foreign country could not possibly be considered a NBC.
Sewer scum I tell ya, all of them....
They didn’t destroy any records. They just want you to think that they did. Don’t fall for it.
Yeh, but it might take a SEAL team to find out for certain. Or just a slice of one.
But from the user's perspective, the effect is the same. What's "under the hood" doesn't really matter to the user.
How would a transaction log, with any confidential information redacted, compromise the “department’s ability to protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system as is required by HRS §338-18”?
Did it compromise the passport agency’s security when it was revealed that Obama’s passport had been accessed on particular days?
If a person was asking to see the vital record itself, they would have a point. But to see the PROCESSING is nowhere forbidden by any law. And seeing the processing would not enable a person to have information they shouldn’t have nor give them the ability to alter the records in any way.
This is a boatload of doo-doo, IOW.
Okubo tried pulling this crap when Factcheck came out with the COLB with no certificate number. She said that showing the certificate number would compromise the security of the system. Then Factcheck reported that they found out that the cert# makes no difference. Well.... they should tell Janice Okubo that, because she’s still trying to use that lame excuse to deny records of THEIR PROCESSING, which is the whole reason that FOIA laws even exist - to hold the government agency accountable for their processing.
What confidential information would be compromised?
What danger would it pose to the integrity of the records?
What improper use of the records would be allowed?
How would this disclosure keep the HDOH from properly and efficiently administering anything?
OIP Opinion Letter 90-22, found at http://hawaii.gov/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2090-22.pdf ,
basically says that a public record can’t be denied simply because it’s in electronic form. If records of processing are public records, then they must be made available to the public even if it is stored as electronic data.
So the total issue comes down to whether processing records are protected from disclosure. I don’t think so, particularly onsidering that applying for and receiving a legal name change are instances of processing for a vital record and that processing is required to be accessible to the public except in certain cases where the actual application itself (but not the act of applying or the processing of the application) is protected for privacy reasons.
Where is the HDOH getting the idea that records of department processing are not public records?
No. I have never said anything like that.
Natural Born Citizen is a legal conclusion. My opinion is that if faced with the question with respect to a person who is born in the territory of the several states, the Supreme Court will likely rule that the person is a Natural Born Citizen for the reason that the 14th Amendment modified the rights of all persons born in the US to include all rights of any citizen including treatment as a Natural Born Citizen under the Constitution.
Although I agree that the historical common law rules that would apply to determine the question should be applicable to deny the status to children of Non-citizens where the parents are not in residence or base citizenship condition, that isn't the way the Supreme Court is likely to come down in the modern world.
This is double speak and nonsense. HRS 338-18 is the same law that specifies disclosure of index data to the public as well as to other specified persons outside the ‘direct and tangible interest’ requirement. There’s no inherent nature for such records to be kept confidential. Part of their legitimate government function is to make public reports. Don’t fall for the lies.
Thank you for the correction.
ClearCase_guy - make sure you read David’s correction, I misunderstood what he said.
Sorry about getting it wrong.
FactCheck reported this quote from Shauna Daly, an Obama spokesperson, "[We] couldn’t get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we’ve found out it’s pretty irrelevant for the outside world.” Here's what Okubo said in a Honolulu Advertiser story, "The thing that’s redacted is just our file number,” she said. “Potentially, if you have that number, you could break into the system.” The story also said, "Health officials contacted the Obama campaign a few months ago in response to the persistent inquiries 'to see if they could try and resolve the issue with the people who were asking questions,' she said." How is it that Obama couldn't get in touch with the DOH and the DOH couldn't get in touch with Obama to resolve the issue and further, to know if the certificate number was a problem or not?? Something doesn't add up.
This might not seem connected, but do you know of any way to find out what was in these Hawaii laws: 1991 act 190, section 1 AND 1997 act 305, section 5?
I found a site, at http://state.hi.us/lrb/reports/bill.html , where you’re supposed to have access to all bills and acts, but I don’t see the 1997 act there. How can I find out what that act said - and specifically whether that was the law which took out the certificate number and date from the index data required to be made public?
Yes - all true and well stated. Now we just have to figure out the best way to do our duty including having a Plan B.
I haven’t read this whole thread yet (got interrupted - gone for a while), just the first two pages and then I jumped to the end to see if you were still around. I was having Deja Vu reading some of the comments here, especially your descriptions of the index and DOH’s statements about it. I believe something quite similar and maybe something useful is in another thread here from August of 2009. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2306351/posts) If not, then what I am remembering might be in this one: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2457491/posts which is “DOH indirectly confirms: Factcheck COLB date filed and certificate number impossible” and was started in Feb. of this year. The first one is over 10K posts and the Feb. one is close to 4K posts(sigh). I could be wrong, but I have this nagging feeling there is something important someone uncovered in that discussion that would be helpful now. I’ll let you know if I find it.
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.