Posted on 06/17/2010 5:25:53 AM PDT by Polarik
The former Honolulu elections clerk who maintains President Obama was not born in Hawaii and has no birth certificate from any hospital in the Aloha State is promoting a simple way to resolve the uproar over eligibility, at least for the future.
Tim Adams, 45, senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in the 2008 campaign, says all candidates for all offices should be required to prove their identity and eligibility before they can even run.
"The easiest way would be to pass legislation saying everyone has to verify their identity when they're running for office," Adams told WND in an exclusive interview last week. "I do think requiring everyone to certify their identity would probably solve the entire controversy."
Adams stresses the requirement should be for all political contests, from the presidency down to local races, to make sure officeholder-wannabes are who they to make sure officeholder-wannabes are who they say they are, and live in the proper district, for instance."
IOW, you've just invented a new form that is even more secret than Obama's original birth certificate. Talk about desperation ...
That's why it needs to be settled law, and everyone should conform for every office.
I am an election clerk and (before that) a poll watcher. I've heard and seen the most amazing things at elections. We were having a water referendum one year (I was poll watching) and a man came in to ask to vote. We have egistration at the polls here in Wisconsin, another bad idea IMHO. He said to the registration clerk, "I'm not a citizen, but I've lived here 25 years." She was going to let him vote.
I was on my feet, ready to object, until the captain intervened and explained that he had to be a citizen to register. The others were going to let him vote and argued about it for some time afterward.
Our general population is amazingly ignorant in some ways.
They weren't rejected on the basis of the Birth Certificate because a valid BC was never presented. THey were rejected because of "standing" of the plaintiff.
I’ve been there and done that (with a cranky sewing machine) except the only names I called it are unprintable on a family forum. What kind of dress are you sewing? Is it for a special occasion?
All of the news today (and every day) is so disturbing, I hope you can post of picture of the dress when it is done. It would give me a lift!
Whatever has already been published is discloseable. Anything else would have to be redacted from the government record requested.
I would imagine a consent to release confidential information would be a public record. What exemption to disclosure would there be for it?
I was pointing out that asking for candidates to present identification is missing the point. What Birthers want is for states to verify the candidate meets the three requirements for Presidency in the Constitution. One can provide documentation of identity without doing that. So, I suggested they work to pass laws establishing validation requirements in individual states. I then noted three provisos for any such efforts.
(1) You can't embellish the requirements in the Constitution.
“What makes you think any state is trying to change or add to the Constitutional requirements??”
It's a guideline to avoid getting one’s validation law cheaply overturned, mentioned solely because some of these threads have inadvertently strayed into that kind of language. You asked what I meant be “embellish,” which I'm glad you finally understand.
“To date, Hawaii has not mailed anyone a printout of Obama’s birth records ... and they still haven't confirmed that Obama’s alleged COLB is genuine.”
That's not the point of the discussion at all. I have said that you are perfectly entitled in your law to request state-issued documents, which means that Hawaii would transmit you a document. I'm simply cautioning that if one receives such a transmittal, one is bound to live with what one gets under the full-faith-and-credit clause. That is, one can't challenge the authenticity of the state-transmitted document one receives in the future presuming one has established a state law for validating ballot placement. That point has nothing to do with the Internet posted image of Obama’s COLB.
“The Supreme Court provided a definition. Not seeing how anyone would have much of a basis to challenge that definition without creating something even more suspect. Therefore, there really shouldn't be much of a concern on this point.”
If you think that a formal definition has been established, you are wrong.
A real live court went on record last year that the existing accumulation of legal precedents on this subject means the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
“Huffing and puffing about your resume for reading Supreme Court decisions does nothing to rebut that definition.”
Again, your presumption of established definition is wrong.
The other thing is why would Obama release what he (or his press secretary) alleges to be a 'real birth certificate' to the public, but then only selectively sign a confidential release form to ONLY release his state of birth through the director of the DOH?? That makes no sense at all.
Prove me wrong then. Just saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. The rest of what you wrote about your three provisos is a list of paranoid nonsense and/or flimsy excuses for inaction.
It’s a blue chiffon dress for my daughter to wear to her cousin’s wedding tomorrow. (Nothing like burning the midnight oil, huh? I don’t get anything done unless there’s a deadline driving me, seems like)
I used the word “frickin’” today. I felt so bad. I’m starting to remind myself of my dad. He’s a salty old Korea vet - good as gold but I’ve heard my share of words that I shouldn’t say.
I’ll have to see if there’s a way to show the dress. I’m just hoping there isn’t too much cleavage. The model on the front of the pattern doesn’t have that problem but I don’t think she’s a D either. I’m cutting the seam allowances short in order to lengthen the bodice a bit. I just barely had enough cloth to get the pieces as they were.
My trouble is it’s too much of a sport to me. I always see how close I can cut it, probably as much for the challenge as for the money savings. I was going to use this project to teach her to sew but when she chose the chiffon fabric I knew I’d better not try to have her learn on that. If this pattern works well for her figure I’ll have her choose some cotton fabric and I’ll teach her on that.
I did lower the tension and it helped a bit. A small bit, but every bit helps.
Right.
And even if Fukino had permission to reveal what is claimed as his birth state, she can’t claim to know what his birth state was. Because of the amendment that can only be legally determined when the BC is presented as evidence to an administrative or judicial person or body. Fukino is administrative but there is no process whereby an already-existing BC would be presented to her as evidence.
“Prove me wrong then. Just saying I’m wrong doesn’t make it so. The rest of what you wrote about your three provisos is a list of paranoid nonsense and/or flimsy excuses for inaction.”
The full-faith-and-credit clause is a fact. It is not paranoid nonsense, and anyone with even a basic understanding of the U.S. Constitution knows exactly its implications for the subject under discussion.
I told you that an actual court went on record last year noting that your definition of NBC is incorrect. They liberally quoted a previous Supreme Court decision to make that note. Whatever one thinks of the correctness of argument, which has been discussed on many of these threads, it clearly indicates to any thinking person that the established Supreme Court definition you erroneously presume to exist is a fiction.
However, since you have demonstrated you are either not reading carefully or do not have the capability to comprehend hypothetical discussions, I will simply wish you a nice day.
Sorry, but that court's 'interpretation' is very easy to dissect as terribly wrong, plus it had no teeth as they avoided saying that Obama is a natural born citizen.
I’ll bet it’s going to be lovely. So few women sew anymore. I always loved sewing, and one of my daughters and one of my daughters-in-law both enjoy it too. My other daughter used to pay her older sister to fix her hems, and used a stapler, or scotch tape, when she went off to college. (She has other endearing qualities, thank God.)
The one who doesn’t sew picked slippery green silk velvet for bridesmaid dresses (Christmas wedding) and talked her sister into sewing all of them. THere were a few words said about that too.
The one who sews spent a year in a bridal salon doing alterations when she was in college. Her tales about the Samoan wedding with the red satin dresses regaled us all. The bridesmaids were not able to be present for measurements and flew in from Samoa just the day before the wedding. Although the dresses were ordered in the largest sizes, they were all too small; and my daughter had to make them fit for a wedding the following day. Luckily, the bridal shop owner had ordered a bolt of matching red satin, and my daughter had to add 2 inserts (gussets) on each back of each dress, all the way to the hem. She was up all night doing that, but she got the dresses finished on time.
And the other daughter has been known to use a stapler! (before iron-on hem tape was invented) Where did I go wrong? LOL
Well, everything in any profession is easy to dissect by untrained, unqualified people lacking competence in the subject matter. It's just that their opinion means absolutely nothing compared to, you know, actual trained, qualified people competent in the subject matter. Judges are generally considered to be the latter in matters of law.
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens. “
You're sophistry is correct. They didn't mention the name Obama. Of course, that conclusion is directly applicable to the argument you have tried to advance. And it is the argument any court case trying to invalidate Obama will have to confront. It's also probably why the Supreme Court has shown no interest in any of these cases on appeal; contrary to your opinion, Ankeny states the accepted understanding of the definition of NBC relative to the two parent issue.
You made me laugh. Funny how kids can be so different from each other. My daughters have the opposite problem: they are so alike that they fight all the time. If they had to be alike, why couldn’t they both be soft and submissive instead of bossy and head-strong? lol.
Well.... I suppose they have the same genes, huh? Where’d they get those from anyway? Must be that Norwegian-German dad of theirs, right? lol.
I can only imagine the nightmare of trying to add to a size at the last minute. Wow.
My sister was hemming her wedding dress on the morning of the wedding. She didn’t have time to have wedding jitters. Maybe that was best after all. lol.
Nonsense. This is the pointless drivel of a junior contrarian and lacks any logical forethought. Second, the subject matter at hand doesn't require complex training, just some basic reading and comprehension skills as well as logic, which I've already demonstrated (as you admit since they didn't pronounce Obama to be a natural born citizen).
"Based upon ... the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."
There's nothing in Wong Kim Ark that would lead to this ignorant conclusion. Wong cited the Minor definition that natural born citizens are those born in the country to parents who are citizens. The framers rejected any idea that simple birth within the territory was enough to establish citizenship for the child of any parent. If so, there would have been no need for the 14th amendment. And, technically, it's not a two-parent issue. Natural born citizenship has always been predicated upon the citizenship of the father. The mother, through marriage, traditionally had the same citizenship as the father. As we know, Obama's papa was not a U.S. citizen. Ankeny erred and erred badly, but since they pronounced no single person to be a natural born citizen, it is a toothless and meaningless interpretation. If challenged, it would fall quickly.
That is factually false. Wong cites a whole lot more than the Minor case. The relevant dicta from Wong Kim Ark is provided below:
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.
124 U.S. 478.
II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.
This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or [p656] explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case, known as Calvin's Case, or the Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere on Postnati, 62-64; S.C., 2 Howell's State Trials, 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.
The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co.Lit. 8a, 128b, Lord Hale, in Hargrave’s Law Tracts, 210, an in 1 Hale P.C. 61, 62; 1 Bl.Com. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl.Com. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 T.R. 300, 308; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, p. 173-177, 741.
In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicil of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: “The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil.” P. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying:
The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.
And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil, domicilium, the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which
the personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy or intestacy, [p657] must depend,
he yet distinctly recognized that a man's political status, his country, patria, and his “nationality, that is, natural allegiance,” “may depend on different laws in different countries.” Pp. 457, 460. He evidently used the word “citizen” not as equivalent to “subject,” but rather to “inhabitant,” and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:
By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.
Cockburn on Nationality, 7.
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:
“British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the Crown. “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” “Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.
The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:
1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.
2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.
And he adds:
The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown.
Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
You can choose to ignore all of that information and focus blindly on the fact that they mentioned Minor vs. Hapersett. But your statement that nothing in Wong Kim Ark could lead to the 2009 Arkeney is demonstrably false; significant portions of this dicta are quoted verbatim by the 2009 Arkeney decision. Significant portions of this dicta establish a very clear historical and legal basis why children with a non-citizen parent can be considered natural born.
Minor vs. Happersett is mentioned once more in Wong Kim Ark:
“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”
The distinction is Minor is not between “plain citizens” and “natural born citizens” but between “natural-born citizens” and aliens (e.g. not citizens). Minor goes out of its way to explicitly note that children with one citizen-parent are not ruled out. It explicitly states that it is not asked that question and is not deciding it.
The dicta of Wong Kim Ark provide a clear basis for concluding that the original intent of the Constitution did not exclude one-citizen parents. It further provides a clear conceptual basis for separately resolving that issue for children born after adoption of the 14th amendment.
Ankeney falls well within established jurisprudence on the issue. No amount of belligerent spewing about ignorance by the uneducated will change that.
Do you know who is authorized to enforce this? Specifically, does it have to be somebody at the federal level? Could a state AG investigate, arrest, and prosecute whoever is responsible in the federal government to do this and who failed to do so for Obama?
*****
It is a federal law - in general, the person who is tasked with processing the paperwork is responsible for ensuring that the applicant is eligible to work in the capacity that he is applying for ...
So, it would be the federal employee who verified Obama’s form ...
As for investigation, since it is a federal law and a federal employee responsible for verification, I assume the Justice Dept. would have to investigate [yeah, right] ...
However, if this were to go viral on the Web - it might cause a big clamor ... especially among immigration groups who are pissed off that illegals have to provide documentation !!!
Here is the link to the Act:
http://www.oig.lsc.gov/legis/irca86.htm
It does not specifically state that a person needs to meet certain requirements of the job - but it does state that the person be authorized to work ...
Since the President is required to be a natural-born citizen, only a natural-born citizen is authorized to work in that capacity.
The argument to be made is that the person responsible for ensuring that the applicant [Obama] is authorized to work in the United States can verify whether he is a citizen - through inspection of normal documents [listed in the Act].
However, this is a singular instance in which such verification is not enough - the applicant must also be authorized to work in that unique position. And, it requires that he be a natural-born citizen. Since the term has never been defined, the person responsible for verification could not make that determination - and the Court Supreme would have to make it.
The problem arises since Obama was born in the US [most likely], but was also born as British citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948. The question is whether a dual citizen is a natural-born citizen of the United States at the moment of his birth.
Without such verification of his natural-born status [or lack thereof], it is illegal to hire Obama for the job ...
Whatever has already been published is discloseable. Anything else would have to be redacted from the government record requested.
I would imagine a consent to release confidential information would be a public record. What exemption to disclosure would there be for it?
A legal Consent to Release Confidential Information form contains an expiration date for when the consent is to be revoked. For example, if Dr. Fukino had received a signed Consent form for her July 27, 2009 press release, that consent to release information could have expired on July 28, 2009 which means all the information goes back to being confidential and unreleasable on that date.
I’m sure that you have seen this a million times, but for folks who haven’t, here’s the Hawaii Confidentiality Statute concerning vital records:
§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) 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, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
(9) 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;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.
(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.
(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]
But once the information has been published the confidentiality exemption to disclosure no longer applies to a document with that information. If a consent expires in 24 hours it still wouldn’t change that fact. And an announcement by Fukio is the stupidest way to release the information because any public announcement she makes she has to be prepared to substantiate, if anybody asks to see the documents on which the statement was based.
Of course, if the crooks run the whole show you don’t have to worry about any of the laws because nobody can make you obey them anyway.
So really this is all academic. Laws, like locks, are for honest people.
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.