Andy Martin and Alan Keyes both tried to subpoena the records in Hawaii courts and were shut down by crooked by judges. Maybe your AG friend will do better.
Your plan to get help from a governor who endorsed a Panamanian-born candidate doesn’t sound to be very fruitful. She obviously didn’t care about the Constitution in the fall; why would she now?
Did your AG friend back the ineligible Panamanian also?
Here’s the exact section of the Hawaii law. We are talking about point 9 below. Neither Alan Keyes nor Andy Martin nor Philip Berg nor Leo Donofrio nor any other citizen filing a civil suit has standing to gain access to a confidential vital record. But a duly authorized officer of the court such as a District Attorney or the state Attorney General WOULD have standing to seek such a subpoena.
The only lawsuit that challenged John McCain’s right to run for President of the United States while being born in Panama was Leo Donofrio’s suit which was denied a writ of certiorari by the US Supreme Court for lack of standing.
§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.
Yes, exactly, point 9. “A court of competent jurisdiction” could have “established by an order” that “a person” (Keyes, Martin...) has a “right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record.”
What part don’t you understand?
All of the courts of competent jurisdiction thus far petitioned (of which you claimed there were none, but there are in fact at least two as noted above) has so far been too crooked to establish such an obvious right.