Posted on 09/02/2013 9:58:26 AM PDT by xzins
Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
From various members of the 1st Congress debating the 1790 Naturalization Act. (Note Jackson's use of Blackstone, and the other's use of British law.):
Mr. Jackson.--It was observed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that we could not modify or confine our terms of naturalization; that we could not admit an alien to the rights of citizenship progressively. I shall take the liberty of supporting the contrary doctrine, which I contend for, by the reference to the very accurate commentator on the laws of England, Justice Blackstone, I, 10.--"Naturalization," says he, "cannot be performed but by an act of Parliament; for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the King's legiance, except only, that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the Privy Council, or Parliament, holding offices, grants, &c. No bill for naturalization can be received in either House of Parliament without such disabling clause in it." So that here we find, in that nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject, not only that citizens are made progressively, but that such a mode is absolutely necessary to be pursued in every act of Parliament for the naturalization of foreigners. Representative James Jackson, Georgia, Officer during Revolution in State Militia, delegate to provincial Congress and to State Convention.
Mr. Burke....The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III. There are several other cases that ought to be likewise attended to.Aedanus Burke, South Carolina, who had been an officer in the Continental Army.
Mr. Hartley observed, that the subject was entirely new, and that the committee had no positive mode to enable them to decide; the practice of England, and the regulations of the several States, threw some light on the subject, but not sufficient to enable them to discover what plan of naturalization would be acceptable under a Government like this. Some gentlemen had objected to the bill, without attending to all its parts, for a remedy was therein provided for some of the inconveniences that have been suggested. It was said, the bill ought to extend to the exclusion of those who had trespassed against the laws of foreign nations, or been convicted of a capital offence in any foreign kingdom; the last clause contains a proviso to that effect, and he had another clause ready to present, providing for the children of American citizens, born out of the United States.Rep Thomas Hartley, Pennsylvania, Continental Army Officer, Delegate to Provincial Congress, Delegate to Ratification Convention
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
This doesn't change the point of my comment about Hawaii not complying such a court order. This only shows the procedure involved for choosing not to honor an out of state order.
This would be in accordance with Article Four, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
Sorry, but the full faith and credit clause requires "the manner in which such acts, record and PROCEEDINGS shall be proved," which still leaves the ball in Hawaii's court to refuse if they don't think the out of state court isa court of competent jurisdiction.
And the RECORDS part of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is why every other state has accepted what Hawaii says is an original, valid and accurate birth record of that state.
No it's not. Obama's birth certificate has never been submitted to ANY court in order to be declared as an "original, valid and accurate" birth record. We had TWO state secretaries of state who specifically asked if Obama's PDF was a true copy and identical copy, and Hawaii REFUSED to verify this on BOTH occasions. By Hawaii's own law, they have to verify the facts as stated by the applicant. If they do NOT do this, then the record is NOT verified as original, valid or accurate.
“This doesn’t change the point of my comment about Hawaii not complying such a court order. This only shows the procedure involved for choosing not to honor an out of state order.”
Hawaii already prepared a Letter of Verification that is now an exhibit for a federal judge in Mississppi for the Obama long form birth certificate. It will be up to Judge Wingate in Jackson, Mississippi to decide whether he thinks the Obama birth certificate should receive full faith and credit or not.
The Alabama Supreme Court also has a copy of the long form submitted in an amicus brief from the Alabama Democratic Party.
Judge Wingate in federal court in Jackson, Mississippi is in possession of a certified Hawaii Letter of Verification and two copies of the Obama long form, one from the plaintiff alleging forgery and one from the defense alleging that it is original, valid and accurate. Judge Wingate has had those exhibits as evidence for more than a year now but he still isn’t ready to rule one wy or the other.
We do know. I hate to cite Orly because she purposely sabotages her own efforts, but she did file court orders in Hawaii to compel production of Obama's birth record and the DOH refused.
In a letter to Taitz, Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine wrote the following: "You are seeking disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, and there is no exception that applies to allow disclosure to you."
Where's that full faith and credit thing you were talking about??
Hawaii already prepared a Letter of Verification that is now an exhibit for a federal judge in Mississippi for the Obama long form birth certificate. It will be up to Judge Wingate in Jackson, Mississippi to decide whether he thinks the Obama birth certificate should receive full faith and credit or not.
Right, and why didn't Obama just submit one of his two hard copies instead of forcing Mississippi to request a letter of verification that doesn't say anything?? Why is it taking so long for Judge Wingate to decide??
The Alabama Supreme Court also has a copy of the long form submitted in an amicus brief from the Alabama Democratic Party.
An actual certified copy?? Photocopies don't qualify for full faith and credit when the actual record is supposed to be certified.
Judge Wingate in federal court in Jackson, Mississippi is in possession of a certified Hawaii Letter of Verification and two copies of the Obama long form, one from the plaintiff alleging forgery and one from the defense alleging that it is original, valid and accurate. Judge Wingate has had those exhibits as evidence for more than a year now but he still isn’t ready to rule one wy or the other.
So what exactly is your point?? Wingate doesn't have a certified copy of the actual birth record and the letter of verification isn't a full verification. It's no surprise a decision hasn't been rendered. Perhaps he's waiting till Obama is out of office so the issue is moot??
Orly Taitz is not a judge nor was she ever given a court order from a judge. She is not authorized to issue court orders. Hawaii is under no obligation to honor her requests since she does not fit in any of the categories that the Hawaii statute pertains to.
Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine was exactly right and Hawaii courts backed up Nagamine’s position with actual court rulings.
The whitehouse.gov PDF image is just a digitized version of the copies that Hawaii provided to Obama. As long as the data is the same, which generation copy is used is irrelevant. If Judge Wingate want a first generation copy or if he would like to inspect the original, he can issue a court order.
Federal Rule of Evidence #1005 covers use of copies to prove content:
“The proponent may use a copy to prove the content of an official record — or of a document that was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law — if these conditions are met: the record or document is otherwise admissible; and the copy is certified as correct in accordance with Rule 902(4) or is testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If no such copy can be obtained by reasonable diligence, then the proponent may use other evidence to prove the content.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1005
It will be up to Judge Wingate and the Alabama Supreme Court to decide on the probative value of the evidence that is before them.
You don't seem to understand. Nagamine RESPONDED to the court order, just like you said they would. What you don't seem to want to admit is that the order did NOT obligate the DOH to turn over any records as you claimed. You were wrong. I proved it. You're changing your argument now to avoid admitting you were wrong.
The whitehouse.gov PDF image is just a digitized version of the copies that Hawaii provided to Obama.
There's no proof of this claim. Hawaii was asked point blank if the "digitized version" was a true copy and if it was an identical copy. They refused to verify this fact on two separate occasion.
YOU don’t seem to understand that a JUDGE’S court order is followed by a contempt of court citation and imprisonment until there is compliance with the order.
Obviously the order that Jill Nagamine responded to was NOT an order for inspection of the long form birth certificate that was issued BY A JUDGE.
Because you are confused about legal procedure, allow me to explain it to you: Orly Taitz issued SUBPOENAS for inspection of Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth with the Hawaii UIPA regulations as her legal theory. However a lawyer’s subpoena is NOT a court order issued by a judge.
Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine responded to the Taitz subpoena on behalf of the Hawaii Department of Health. Judge Rhonda Nishimura ruled that Taitz’s subpoenas did NOT have to be honored under UIPA by the Hawaii Department of Health. Dr. Taitz sought to have a Hawaii judge enforce her subpoenas under a Writ of Mandamus.
Here is a link to Judge Nishimura’s Denial Order:
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/77566820
Judge Nishimura’s official order was to DENY Taitz’s request for reciprocal subpoena enforcement.
Deputy Attorney General Nagamine then issued notice that vexatious litigant status for Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., would be a part of a new round of sanctions for Orly Taitz. Nagamine wrote: “If you persist in your frivolous filings, we will seek all sanctions legally available.”
“ The A-G’s office will file another motion requesting vexatious litigant status, attorney fees and sanctions.
Orly Taitz would have had to return to Hawaii, one more time, to show cause why the new Nagamine motion would not have to be granted.
Orly Taitz also filed suit against Judge Rhonda Nishimura at the Hawaii Supreme Court. Dr. Taitz was seeking Writ of Mandamus which would compel Judge Nishimura to issue a court order for release of Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth. The request for the Writ was denied.
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/78090447
Sorry, but this is an irrelevant excuse. The AG's office did NOT object on the basis of who issued the court order or whether the court order was sufficient. They denied the order on the basis of the same law that I've already cited.
Luckily we have the Nagamine Motion To Dismiss available on the Internet so that anybody can read exactly why the state of Hawaii challenged the Orly Taitz’ subpoena for the Obama birth record.
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/64116181
The Readers’ Digest version is exactly what I said: Orly Taitz does not qualify in any category to waive privacy considerations under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18.
The longer, legal version is that Taitz failed to execute proper service of subpoena, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and Taitz failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The Judge agreed.
IOW, you just proved me right verbatim. I said that the DOH did NOT challenge over whether the court order was signed by a judge. I said the DOH could REFUSE on the basis of 388-18 in interpreting whether the court’s jurisidiction was competent or not. And that’s exactly what they did in this motion. All you’re doing is proving me right. Thank you. What you didn’t back up is your claim that ANY judge in America could send a court order to Hawaii and get Obama’s records. Show all of us when and where this has happened. I’ll wait. t back up is your claim that ANY judge in America could send a court order to Hawaii and get Obama
No in-state or out of state judge of a court of competent jurisdiction has ever issued to any plaintiff a court order for Obama’s original birth certiicate under the provisions of Hawaii Revised Statatue 338-18(b) (point 9), so no one can know what HDOH, the state Attorney General’s Office or the Hawaii courts would do.
One of Hawaii Deputy Attorney General Nagamine’s arguments in Taitz v. Fuddy & Onaka was that Dr. Taitz did not qualify in ANY of the categories of persons who are designated to be able to receive access to a confidential birth record.
One of those categories is that a confidential birth record can be inspected by or released in the form of a certified copy to: “A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;”
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm
The judge agreed and then when Dr. Taitz sued the judge, the Hawaii state Supreme Court also agreed with the original jurisdiction ruling.
This means absolutely nothing. Judges aren't only the people who can issue court orders. Nothing in 388-18 says the court order has to be signed specifically by a judge. Your own example showed that the HI AG did not challenge on the basis of who signed the order but how it was served AND THEN, it challenged over the jurisdiction of the court. Having a judge's signature on the order won't change that. It's time to admit you were wrong. I proved it and YOU PROVED it for me.
Court Order:
“A court order is an official proclamation by a judge (or panel of judges) that defines the legal relationships between the parties to a hearing, a trial, an appeal or other court proceedings. Such ruling requires or authorizes the carrying out of certain steps by one or more parties to a case. A court order must be signed by a judge; some jurisdictions may require it to be notarized.
The content and provisions of a court order depend on the type of proceeding, the phase of the proceedings in which they are issued, and the procedural and evidentiary rules that govern the proceedings.
An order can be as simple as setting a date for trial or as complex as restructuring contractual relationships by and between many corporations in a multi-jurisdictional dispute. It may be a final order (one that concludes the court action), or an interim order (one during the action). Most orders are written, and are signed by the judge. Some orders, however, are spoken orally by the judge in open court, and are only reduced to writing in the transcript of the proceedings.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_order
(3) Issued by Whom. The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service. An attorney also may issue and sign a subpoena as an officer of:
(A) a court in which the attorney is authorized to practice; or
(B) a court for a district where a deposition is to be taken or production is to be made, if the attorney is authorized to practice in the court where the action is pending.
Again, your claim fails because Hawaii did NOT challenge Orly's subpoena on the basis of who signed the order, but how that order was served and THEN it challenged that the jurisdiction of the court from which Orly was filing her order. I've shown explicitly how the DOH did NOT honor a court order. Why should they fight it when the Uniform Information Practices Act and their own disclosure laws would allow them to comply with the subpoena?? What possible motive does it serve anyone not to comply with something that has allegedly already been made public??
I’m sure that you are aware of the fact that a court order signed by a judge carries more weight than an attorney’s subpoena.
As I already told you, HDOH’s reason for refusing to honor subpoenas is that none of them were issued by persons who qualified as being eligible to gain access to a confidential vital record under the provisions of HRS 338-18.
The reason these requests went to court was to have the court decide whether UIPA or HRS 338-18 took precedence. THAT was the source of the legal controversy.
Perhaps you should read the actual Hawaii judges’ rulings. They do a good job of explaining why they have not permitted any subpoenas for records or Writs of Mandamus to go forward:
Constitution Party v. Governor Lingle. State of Hawaii Supreme Court: complaint contesting 2008 Presidential election results and contending that the Governor’s administration failed to require proof that candidate Barack Obama was qualified to be a candidate for President of the United States. Dismissed; reconsideration, Dismissed. 12/2008.
Hamrick v. Health Director Fukino. US District Court, Hawaii: seeking a copy of Obama’s certified birth certificate to determine whether he is natural born citizen; Dismissed, 5/2009.
Justice v. Health Director Fuddy. Hawaii state Circuit Court: seeking access to records relevant to Obama’s eligibility, Dismissed; Dismissal affirmed, Hawaii Court of Appeals. 10/2009 & 4/2011.
Martin v. Governor Lingle. Hawaii state District Court: seeking to compel disclosure of Obama’s birth records based on challenge to his eligibility. Dismissed; Hawaii Court of Appeals, Dismissed; Hawaii Supreme Court, Writ Denied. 1/2009 & 8/2009.
Martin v. Attorney General Bennett. Hawaii state District Court: seeking to compel disclosure of Obama’s birth records based on challenge to his eligibility; Dismissed; 9/2010.
Sunahara v. Hawaii Department of Health. Hawaii state District Court: complaint seeking access to birth/death records of Virginia Sunahara based on connection to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed, Appeal pending. 3/2012.
Taitz v Astrue. U.S. District Court, Hawaii: ex parte application to compel discovery regarding Obama’s eligibility in a related case in the District of Columbia; 10/2011.
Taitz v. Health Director Fuddy (Freedom of Information Act). Hawaii state Circuit Court: appeal of agency refusal to grant access to documents allegedly related to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed; Rehearing Denied; petition for reciprocal subpoena enforcement, Denied; Ex-Parte Amended Motion for Reconsideration, Denied. 11/2011 & 2/2012
Taitz v Obama. Hawaii Office of Elections: petition seeking to challenge Obama’s eligibility to be on 2012 ballot and demand for an emergency hearing on this challenge; Petition rejected. 12/2011.
Taitz v Judge Rhonda A. Nishimura. Hawaii Supreme Court; petition for a Writ of Mandamus to force Circuit Court Judge Nishimura to issue a court order forcing the Hawaii Department of Health to grant access to birth vital records related to Obama’s eligibility. Petition Denied. 1/2012.
Thomas v Hosemann. US District Court, Hawaii; action seeking to compel Hawaii Dept. of Health to provide access to documents related to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed. 12/2008.
Wolf v Health Director Fuddy. Hawaii state Circuit Court; seeking to compel disclosure of documents allegedly related to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed. 9/2011. Appeal to Hawaii Court of Appeals, Summary Disposition Order Affirmed by Intermediate Court of Appeals, 5/31/13.
Don’t like Wikipedia? O.K., here’s a different source that DIRECTLY relates to releases of confidential information from public health agencies like the Hawaii Department of Health.
Court Orders and Subpoenas
A covered health care provider or health plan may disclose protected health information required by a court order, including the order of an administrative tribunal. However, the provider or plan may only disclose the information specifically described in the order.
A subpoena issued by someone other than a judge, such as a court clerk or an attorney in a case, is different from a court order. A covered provider or plan may disclose information to a party issuing a subpoena only if the notification requirements of the Privacy Rule are met. Before the covered entity may respond to the subpoena, the Rule requires that it receive evidence that reasonable efforts were made to either:
notify the person who is the subject of the information about the request, so the person has a chance to object to the disclosure, or to
seek a qualified protective order for the information from the court.
For further information on this topic, please refer to 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e) and OCR’s Frequently Asked Questions.
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/courtorders.html
Not according to the the Federal Rules of Procedure for Civil Trials that I just quoted. You've shown nothing to back up your claim that the HI DOH would be any more willing to honor a court order signed by a judge.
As I already told you, HDOH’s reason for refusing to honor subpoenas is that none of them were issued by persons who qualified as being eligible to gain access to a confidential vital record under the provisions of HRS 338-18.
No, you cited the motion to dismiss which refused to honor the subpoena on the basis of improper service and because of jurisdiction. This does NOT back up the argument you have made.
The reason these requests went to court was to have the court decide whether UIPA or HRS 338-18 took precedence. THAT was the source of the legal controversy.
What are you talking about?? You're trying to change the argument from your original point. Dude, just admit you were wrong. I proved it and you helped me prove it. You're trying to deflect by creating a new irrelevant argument, and no one is going to fall for such desperation.
Sorry, but this only applies to health care and health plans. It doesn't say anything about state records agencies. Second, even if it did apply it fails because it only requires the application of notification requirements. There's no notification requirement in regards to HRS 338-18.
The Hawaii Department of Health is a health care provider agency. The Department of Health is also the vital records repository in that state (as Departments of Health are in many states). Birth, is usually a medical procedure.
What has failed is any attempt to release a Hawaii vital record to an individual who is not covered under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 (b).
Every attempt to force release to individuals not covered by 338-18(b) in 12 tries through the Hawii courts has failed.
JUSTICE v. FUDDY
Dr. Robert V. JUSTICE, an individual, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Loretta FUDDY,Director of the Department of Health, and the State of Hawai‘i–Department of Health, an agency of the State of Hawai‘i, Defendants–Appellees.
No. 30176.— April 07, 2011
NAKAMURA, Chief Judge, and FUJISE, J.; with LEONARD, J., concurring separately.
Dr. Robert V. Justice, on the briefs, Plaintiff–Appellant Pro Se.Heidi M. Rian, Jill T. Nagamine, Deputies Attorney General, on the briefs, for Defendants–Appellees.
This appeal involves a request for disclosure of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate under the Hawai‘i Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) (UIPA), Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 92F. Plaintiff–Appellant Dr. Robert V. Justice (Plaintiff), appearing pro se, filed a complaint, pursuant to the UIPA, seeking an order directing the Department of Health (DOH) of the State of Hawai‘i to permit him “to inspect and copy” President Obama’s original birth certificate. The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
To be eligible to serve as President of the United States, a person must be a natural born citizen.2 Plaintiff seeks disclosure of President Obama’s birth certificate so that Plaintiff can assure himself that President Obama is eligible to serve as President. Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to such disclosure based on a provision of the UIPA which requires the disclosure of “[g]overnment records pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual[.]” HRS § 92F–12(b)(3) (1993).
The sole argument Plaintiff raises on appeal, which is also the only specific basis for relief he asserted in the trial court, is that his complaint states a claim for relief under this “compelling circumstances” provision. That provision, however, is directed at requiring access to records in medical or safety emergency situations. We hold that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief based on the “compelling circumstances” provision (HRS § 92F–12(b)). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint.
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the final judgment of the Circuit Court.
Dr. Robert V. Justice’s (Dr. Justice’s) sole argument on appeal is that his complaint states a claim for relief under HRS § 92F–12(b)(3) (1993), which requires each Hawai‘i agency to disclose “[g]overnment records pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual[.]” In his brief, Dr. Justice alleges that such compelling circumstances exist and that they warrant an order that Dr. Justice be allowed to physically inspect the original birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama II (President Obama) because:
[T]he President of the United States is the Commander–in–Chief of our military and entrusted with our nuclear and chemical arsenals to ensure the health and safety of all of us. The inspection of the purported birth certificate for [President Obama] will ensure the health and safety of all 300 million of us by making sure that our military and our nuclear and chemical arsenals are still under our control and not in the control of any one of our enemies.
(Citation omitted.)
As stated in the majority opinion, while Dr. Justice may have a strong desire to personally verify President Obama’s eligibility, pursuant to article II, section 1 of the United States Constitution, to serve as President of the United States, such desire does not constitute compelling circumstances within the meaning of HRS § 92F–12(b)(3). Dr. Justice does not have the power or authority to determine President Obama’s eligibility. Only the Congress of the United States has the power to remove a sitting president. Indeed, Dr. Justice has not alleged any factual basis for his implicit contention that President Obama may not be a natural-born citizen of the United States. Dr. Justice has not stated an overpowering or urgent need for the records to protect the life or safety of an individual in a medical or other emergency. Accordingly, I concur.
[excerpted]
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-intermediate-court-of-appeals/1563066.html
No it's not. A hospital would be, but not the department of health.
The Department of Health is also the vital records repository in that state (as Departments of Health are in many states). Birth, is usually a medical procedure.
The DOH doesn't have anything to do with administering the procedure. Their disclosure laws aren't related to HIPAA.
What has failed is any attempt to release a Hawaii vital record to an individual who is not covered under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 (b). Every attempt to force release to individuals not covered by 338-18(b) in 12 tries through the Hawii courts has failed.
All you're doing is proving my point. Hawaii is refusing to comply with its own disclosure laws. Orly's subpoena fits the direct and tangible interest rule, but the DOH is simply refusing to acknowledge this. They have no compelling reason to deny the disclosure. You certainly haven't shown one. p
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.