Freedom Of Information Lawsuits For Failing To Comply

[rocco55]

As many already know, Mr. Andy Martin has had "less than user-friendly" cooperation from the State of HI regarding the requests he intended to file via the Uniform Information Practices Act. He claims he requested UIPA information via mail service and received a packet, but "no forms" !

Recently, requests were made to the Hawaiian Department Of Health by U.S. citizens requesting information that the UIPA Laws within the State of Hawaii unequivocally support the release of, regardless of the party to whom the information pertains.

I personally do not expect the DOH to provide any of these people the consideration of satisfying their requests unless they are an attorney or have an attorney contact the State directly and demand fulfillment of the requests with a deadline accompanied by a notice that legal action will be taken, if necessary, should the petitioners experience the DOH failing to comply with their own UIPA laws. To the best of my knowledge, these laws are as binding on the State officials as the enforcement of fines and penalties for violations or crimes as mandated by the state. That is, they have just as much of an obligation to fulfill requests of petitioners under this Act as they do to collect a fine for a traffic violation, unpaid real estate taxes, etc. The UIPA is a part of their law and they are obligated to abide by it!

Why can't the DOH be legally liable for refusing to comply with these requests, or furthermore, why can't individuals in supervisory positions be "personally" responsible if their department fails to meet the requests made under their own law ? Wouldn't such defiant, non-complying state employees be guilty of discrimination against the petitioner of such requests ? Or couldn't the State employees be guilty of showing personal preferential bias and undue favoritism toward the person to whom the requests pertain ?

It seems egregiously apparent that some State officials are, knowingly or unknowingly, acting at the behest of the new administration, regardless of the accuracy of the information they are publicly proclaiming. Maybe, in their own personal opinion, there is less liability in conducting questionable or potentially illegal business practices with the support of Washington, than there is in being an honest unbiased worker fulfilling State mandated UIPA requests even at the risk of incurring the wrath of the mass media and it's millions of deceived minions.

Regardless of the position or motives of the employees, if anyone is intentionally avoiding or dismissing legitimate requests, as supported by State law, I think they should be held legally responsible for their lack of action, both personally and at the state level.

Maybe if some of these uncooperative individuals realize the risk of being "personally" responsible for intentional negligence, they will think twice before disregarding the current requests before them.

Has anyone noticed the influx of recent posts from uninformed and irrational left wing critics on this site lately ?

To deny that we are in a WAR for TRUTH is unconscionable. And unfortunately war requires FIGHTING BACK !

[April Lexington]

That feller’s hidin sumpin...

[bgill]

Has everyone read the report from the committee that determined McLame was eligible? There were 5 RATS and 1 Republican and Chertoff who all agreed on the definition of “natural born citizen” meaning born on US soil to US citizen parents (the plural as in both mom and dad). Two of the RATS just happened to be

*****CLINTON and OBAMA*******

Obama has said many times and wrote in Dreams he is the son of O Sr., a Kenyan. The COLB shows his father to be O. Sr., an African. Bottom line, he is not a “natural born citizen” by his own definition from the committe so he is not eligible.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

[AlexW]

“Bottom line, he is not a “natural born citizen” by his own definition from the committe so he is not eligible.”

There is a lot of confusion over this.
Some claim that McCain was not born in the Canal Zone, but in Panama, but BOTH parents were US citizens, and therefore, he is natural born, but some even dispute this.
There is a lot of ambiguity in the law.

Obama maybe had one parent, a US citizen of legal age (questioned), but he was, supposedly but not confirmed,
born on US soil, and therefore a US citizen.

[rocco55]

Every time I read this resolution (thanks for the reminder), I am amazed that BO actually endorsed a bill stating that a child having (TWO) parents that are U.S. citizens establishes him/her as a “natural born citizen”. I still find it hard to believe that he supported this bill. It’s nothing short of self incriminating ! I think Donofrio and others have referenced this, but who listens to people that know what they’re talking about anymore ?