Posted on 08/10/2009 2:17:25 PM PDT by rocco55
Aug. 10, 2009
Dear Office Of Information - State of Hawaii,
I have written the Health Dept. of the State of HI and Ms. Janice Okubo has referred me to your department with the following concerns regarding requests for full disclosure of public records as stated in the UIPA manual.
It is my understanding that the State of HI cannot refer to the confidentiality clause known as Exemption 2 of the UIPA manual (as stated below) as a defense in failing to release any requested records for the following reasons:
Here is the State statute (p. 26) regarding confidentiality:
Exemption 2 – Confidential Source Records (§92F-22(2)) An agency may withhold records where necessary to protect the identity of a source who furnished information to the agency under an express or implied promise of confidentiality. (end quote)
Here are my concerns regarding the UIPA manual.
If any original vital records were not submitted with an express or implied promise of confidentiality, then those records, according to this statute, cannot be considered confidential. Subsequent records specifically filed with written or expressed confidentiality would be considered as being "confidential", but there is nothing in the UIPA manual allowing for original non-confidential documents to subsequently become amended to a "confidential" status. Notice the confidentiality guideline refers to "a source who furnished information to the agency under an express or implied promise of confidentiality." There is no allowance in the UIPA manual for a subsequent relative to revise the status of the original filing. The confidentiality refers to the "identity of a source who furnished information to the agency." It is NOT referring to the confidentiality of the child, but rather the "source" who furnished the information.
Consequently, ANY documents that were not originally filed with an express or implied promise of confidentiality, MUST be disclosed (upon request) and CANNOT be considered confidential, as per this guideline.
Further, if subsequent documents specifically furnished under an expressed or implied promise of confidentiality, the fact that Ms. Fukino has both examined and publicly announced her findings would constitute a violation of said "confidentiality" ? What part of the UIPA guidelines allows one to enter into an agreement of confidentiality and then permits a State official to make a "National proclamation" regarding those records ? Such an announcement would either serve to declare such exemption null and void or constitute a breach of the State's responsibility to maintain its "promise of confidentiality."
Additionally, in June 2008, the Obama administration has categorically approved the public release of a Certification Of Live Birth, therefore, the State cannot declare a "confidential" exemption on that document.
Consequently, the state is obligated to disclose whether the COLB documents was ever released to the Obama campaign prior to 6/2008. However, Ms. Okubo has refused to comment on the question of the origination of the COLB posted in 6/2008.
If the COLB document was posted by The Obama Administration on the internet allowing "WORLDWIDE EXPOSURE", how can that document be considered "confidential" ? Either the individual has waived his promise of confidentiality or violated his right under such an exemption. So, I respectfully request of your department, "Did the State Of Hawaii ever issue a copy of Barack Obama's Certification of Live Birth, which document was publicly posted in June 2008, to Mr. Obama or any of his designees prior to June, 2008 ?"
The guidelines as stated in the UIPA handbook does not allow for the law to go "both ways" on this.
The manual clearly states that any request for “government records. This term is defined broadly to include any information maintained by an agency that is recorded in any physical form." (end quote page 10), not considered confidential, as per the UIPA guidelines of the State Of Hawaii, must be fully disclosed upon written request within 10 days from date of said request.
Please submit a reply with respect to the aforementioned issues at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully Submitted
Sweet. Keep up the pressure.
go, Rocco, GO!
look here
You go!
And keep us updated.
Are you a lawyer?
Letter to HI Office Of Information re: Uniform Information Practices Act
That one word? The hospital name.
Correction: Page 27, not 26
If you knew that someone was not born in this country and hid information, would you go to jail for 10 or 20 years?
One more chink exposing the pernicious bias of the Hawaiian officials protecting this lying affirmative action fraud. You know of course that these democrat partisans will refuse to abide by any law they deem an impediment to their marxist messiah, just as Fukino made a wholy non-legal proclamation that Barry is a natural born citizen. These creeps running Hawaii are just as criminal as Barry’s Chicago mob.
The democrat slugs in Hawaii have been shown plausible deniability so they would not be indicted under violation of the laws and codes in hawaii ... and I think you realize that.
Additionally, in June 2008, the Obama administration has categorically approved the public release of a Certification Of Live Birth,
It was the Obama campaign in June 2008, not the administration. It only seems that long.
On July 27th 2009, the Obama Administration, specifically Press Secretary Gibbs, stated "A year-and-a-half ago I asked that the birth certificate be put on the Internet".
Link is to whitehouse.gov press briefing.
Just to be precise.
Thanks bitt, they are keeping the pressure on!!
El Gato, OK, I stand corrected. The point I was making was since it was publicly released, I would think the Dept Of Information would be hard-pressed to make a case that it is “private” or “confidential” information...and if it’s not confidential nor private, then they “should” be able to comment on it. I think in the manual, there are guidelines that if the State cannot release information (whether personal or governmental) they are required to explain why. That is, “court order”, “privacy”, etc. To date, I have never heard that the vital records are sealed by a court order, but if they use that a reason not to release them, then we can at least state them as source for the info.
Maybe, before we die, someone in the MSM (other than Dobbs) might see the irony in the quote from an article below:
During the 2008 Presidential Election, Barack Obama claimed that his administration would be transparent. He even posted his promise for transparency on the White House website. On that site, the following can be found:
“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use.”
Thx for your reply and the correction.
Thanks for the ping!
can you clone yourself? We need an archivist on this issue.
LOLOL!
Well done!
There in lies the effectiveness if the certificate issue.
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.