Posted on 05/07/2010 9:01:18 PM PDT by PilotDave
You should write a book. The details interspersed with comments like that one. It’s get on Amazon top sellers just like the Manchurian President is doing.
Your comments are dynamite. And you so clearly make the point that this is not some tiny beaurocratic detail. It’s the rule of law that is being destroyed.
They ARE arguing that HRS 338-18 trumps the rules. But HRS 338-18a (the only part in 338-18 which actually deals specifically with certificates) only applies to disclosures that AREN’T authorized by rules or statute. This disclosure is authorized by the rules so 338-18a never applies to it. Because HRS 338-18a specifically defers to the rules, there is no conflict with anything authorized by the rules.
To me, this is where a lawyer’s interpretation might clarify. Part (a) forbids disclosure “except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.” Part (b) goes on to state who is eligible for a certificate, and who is eligible for a letter of verification in lieu of a certified copy. Part (d) describes data that can be made public: “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.”
So the interpretation hangs on
I admit this is beyond me – I’m not a lawyer and have no special expertise in administrative rules.
(Final conclusion: The Hawaii DOH had a messy and lax process, and needs bring their old material up to date. But you knew that all too well!)
2.2 gives wide latitude to the director in determining what information can be made public, but I don’t read this as her being able to say she’ll expose everything about Person A but only give the name of Person B.
This is what I’d see as interesting to a journalist. If you could prove that different data was given out to the public about one person vs. another, and the circumstances were similar (both recent, neither authorizing release, etc.) At that point you'd have solid evidence rather than speculation. Do you have information about someone obtaining data about another Hawaii birth certificate holder?
I'm afraid that's as much as time as I can devote right now.
Simply the fact that Fukino made a public announcement saying that there is a claim of a Hawaii birth on a birth record for one person (Obama) when their answer regarding everybody else - and for Obama until that July 2009 announcement - is that they can’t reveal anything on a birth certificate shows that they have treated Obama’s differently. They broke 338-18a when they made that statement because - without actually saying where Obama was born (because what is on the BC doesn’t qualify as prima facie evidence), they did reveal what is on his birth record - which is precisely what is forbidden in HRS 338-18a.
They are refusing to give anybody a non-certified COLB for anybody at this point. But there is reason to believe that they may have given a non-certified COLB for someone else to Obama and/or his handlers early on. They’ll never reveal that they’ve done that though, for reasons I can’t yet say here.
To find that out they’d have to release the transaction log for the record in question, showing when it was accessed, altered, printed, etc. That kind of information is exactly how we knew that Obama’s passport had been illegally accessed. So transaction records are required to be made public according to FOIA, and UIPA is interpreted according to the requirements of FOIA (as the OIP has stated several times).
I have been trying for the last 4 1/2 months to get the transaction log for Obama’s birth record. The last they told me was that UIPA doesn’t require them to release what is protected from disclosure. So I told them to cite the law which protects transaction logs from disclosure - as the OIP actually requires them to do when they deny access to a record.
Their response: “Please review our response of March 1, 2010 (below).”
I’ve asked them if that is their final response. If so, I will appeal to the OIP for a ruling on whether their answer is proper. But the OIP lately has taken about a week just to get to my request - and then they said they couldn’t do anything even though the time limit for a legal response was past because the HDOH wasn’t done communicating with me (this after the HDOH hadn’t communicated for over 10 business days from the last time I had contacted them; my original request had been months before).
And in previous appeals to the OIP I was told that the OIP lets the HDOH decide what the laws mean.
IOW, the only way any of these rules will be actually followed is if and when a judge grabs the records out of the DHOH’s cold, dead hands.
Again, that’s why I say this is the utter failure of the rule of law. That is primarily what bothers me. Obama is just a side issue.
Regarding conflicts between HRS 338-18 and the HDOH Administrative Rules, HRS 338-18 only addresses CERTIFIED copies and nowhere forbids non-certified copies. So the two supplement each other and present no conflict.
Again, I appreciate your time. Today and tomorrow are really busy for me as well.
Any mention of the 1st lady being a birther?
There are 2 Youtube videos so far of her saying Obama was born in Kenya.
Even NPR calls Obama “Kenyan-born” in an archived article.
“Whether the document that was floated around is legitimate doesn’t matter.” - AR
So, you hold the position that Obama’s campaign posting a forged COLB on their own website is irrelevant?
If they had a real one why would they post a forgery?
Why no “corrected” COLB posted? (They have had plenty of time.)
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.