I’ve read your comments on the False Statement Act and I just don’t really see that would ever come into play.
On the Viriginia Sunahara BC, all I can say is ‘dead men tell no tales.’ That’s much more of a closed-ended situation than for Obama, where in the latter case, they have to keep their distance and as much plausible deniability as possible, just in case Obama accidentally blows the whistle on himself.
I think plausible deniability is why they’ve waffled around about Obama’s records, their procedures, etc. They give the APPEARANCE of affirming what Obama has posted but there’s always waffle room. They always leave waffle room.
Even looking at what Nagamine argued against Taitz on Friday, they claim that even if a subpoena applied to them, HRS 338-18 won’t allow them to obey a subpoena because it only allows release to individuals who (among other things) are declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to have a legal right to access the record. Sounds to me like they would claim that a judge ordering the disclosure of the record would not be enough; the judge would first have to declare himself as having a legal right to access the record.
That kind of parsing words is what they do. Waffle room. It allows plausible deniability. I’ve been wrestling for over 2 1/2 years with that kind of waffling from them.
Dead men tell no tales, but the HDOH is gonna have a hard time justifying their refusal to give Duncan Sunahara a photocopy of Virginia’s long-form when that disclosure is REQUIRED by UIPA. Not a hard time justifying it to the judge. The Hawaii judge will wink at the corruption; I’m convinced there is no rule of law whatsoever in Hawaii government. But they will have a hard time justifying it to the public, which is the only real trial any of the Hawaii bureaucrats face - which is why they want to shut us down through the “vexatious requestor” law and their obfuscations.
All in all, though, neither Obama nor the HDOH have anything to worry about in regards to presenting a halfway decent forgery to Malihi unless he requires other documentation too.
What I really wonder, though, is who can force the HDOH to produce their transaction logs and original microfilms, give depositions, etc. And in what type of setting (i.e. criminal or civil trial, etc). I’m doing too much talking and not enough listening. I really want to understand how that works.