Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
Lakin Sentenced
1545: Sentence announced. Dismissal, confinement for 6 months, total forfeitures.
The size and pay goes to the President for signature as part of the Defense Budget.
“On to the President
Regardless of how it leaves the Congress, once it does, it goes to the President for his signature. Note that the legislative process does not operate in a vacuum, and the President, or his staff, has been tracking bills that pass the Congress. A bill showing up on the President’s desk, then, is never a surprise. In all likelihood, the President has commented on the bill, indicating his likelihood of signing it, perhaps indicating that he will veto it unless certain provisions are in the bill, and so on. By the time the President officially sees the bill, it is either in accordance with his wishes, or in defiance of them.
Officially, all bills that pass both houses are signed by the Speaker of the House and the President (or President Pro Tem) of the Senate before being presented to the President. This process does not usually include any politicized delays, but it could delay a bill a day or two. Then, the bill is delivered to the President and the 10-day clock starts to tick.
The President may sign the bill at any time after its deliverance. If it sits unsigned for more than the 10-day period, it becomes law regardless of his signature or not. The exception to this 10-day period is commonly called a pocket veto. In a pocket veto, the President can kill a bill if it goes unsigned and Congress adjourns prior to the 10-day time limit. The term “pocket veto” comes from the fact that if the President knows an adjournment is coming, he can place the bill in his pocket and forget about it. Note that the general interpretation of the adjournment needed for a pocket veto does not include short-term adjournments; only when the Congress adjourns “sine die,” or, basically, for good. This might be when a Congress ends before the next begins, or during an extended adjournment during a seasonal break.”
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html
There is not a conflict between HRS 338-18 and the Administrative Rules. HRS 338-18(a) only forbids disclosures that are not already authorized in the HDOH rules.
The rest of 338-18 either deals with physical inspection of the original records themselves, certified copies, or certified verification - none of which apply to non-certified copies.
OIP Opinion letters say that the items which present a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy are, IIRC, the birth date, social security number, and resident address. In my request I specifically mentioned that I recognized that UIPA allows some information to be redacted from that public record because of privacy considerations.
The only item on a non-certified COLB which would qualify as having a privacy interest is the birth date. Which is actually included in birth announcements the HDOH gives the newspapers now, if I’m not mistaken, so that’s goofy. And HRS 338, before UIPA was passed, included name, date of the event, gender, and certificate number as REQUIRED index data that anybody could find out; required disclosures were to be grandfathered in as discloseable once UIPA was passed, as well.
Anyway, after all that, HRS 338-18a only applies to disclosures NOT allowed by law or the Administrative Rules, and HRS 338-18b doesn’t address non-certified copies. So there’s no conflict between HRS 338-18 and the Administrative Rules. HRS 338-13 REQUIRES disclosures to be made to applicants, in compliance with HRS 338-16, 17, and 18. So whatever disclosures are authorized by 338-18, for instance (which defers to the Administrative Rules), are REQUIRED to be disclosed according to 338-13. And they’re also required disclosures under UIPA as well.
When the HDOH mentions HRS 338-18 forbidding disclosures to those without a “direct and tangible interest in the record” they make sure to say that “certified copies” are forbidden. Non-certified copies are not forbidden and in the Administrative Rules non-certified ABBREVIATED certificates are expressly authorized for ANYBODY to receive.
So - as Itamura noted - non-certified abbreviated certificates CAN be disclosed. There is no conflict between HRS 338-18 and the Administrative Rules. And both HRS 338-13 and UIPA would thus REQUIRE non-certified abbreviated certificates to be disclosed to anybody who asks for them.
Actually, 338-18 deals with copies of any sort: ""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."
Once again, we come down to you citing administrative rules from a 1955 document with handwritten notes and cross outs, and me pointing to the 1977 statute which is far more restrictive.
I think that would depend on whether the bill has to be presented to “the President”. If the bill has to be presented to “the President” and was never presented to Joe Biden, then it presumably couldn’t be either pocket vetoed OR become law. It would be in limbo. If it was still in limbo by April 15th I suppose the Bush tax cuts would have expired by the time the taxes have to be paid.
If the bill doesn’t have to be presented to “the President”, then without a valid POTUS signature within 10 days or before the Congress adjourned, the pocket veto would kick in. So it would be pocket vetoed for sure.
I think maybe Mr Rogers is right, though, if the time for the 10 days to start counting is from when the President is presented the bill. So the 10 days would start counting from whenever the bill was presented to Joe Biden. Until then it would be in limbo and the Bush tax cuts would expire because they hadn’t been extended. They would expire as of Jan 1st, I suppose.
I’m pretty tired so I’m not sure I’m thinking clearly, but that’s what I’d say from here.
For me personally, my husband does our taxes; we file a joint return. He doesn’t make waves so he would do whatever Turbo Tax tells him to do and take the penalty if it turns out we paid too little because Obama was proven to have “failed to qualify”. That would be the most pleasing fine I would ever have to pay. I would dance and sing to pay that fine. lol.
I, being the quiet, submissive wife, would let my husband figure out our taxes according to his conscience. He stays out of my kitchen and I stay out of his office; the recipe to a happy marriage. lol
How’s that for an answer? lol
The 338-18 part that you cited was from 338-18(a), and it forbids those things EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY THIS PART OR BY RULES ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.”
The rules adopted by the DOH allow for non-certified abbreviated certificates to be disclosed to anybody who asks for them, so there is nothing in 338-18(a)that even applies to non-certified abbreviated certificates.
And that's the problem I keep mentioning. The rules from the 1955 document allow things that are forbidden by the specified part of the 1977 statute. While the 1955 rules allow noncertified copies, the statute forbids all copies, excepting only certified copies to applicants who fit the requirements. It even forbids allowing anyone to "inspect" the records, which would make it strange to permit issuing an uncertified copy. To me, this raises the question of whether the 1977 statute supercedes the previous DOH rules.
Obviously, the DOH should have rewritten their rules in light of the statute. I can see all sorts of issues raised if the DOH issued noncertified copies of birth certificates to anyone who asked for one. Would schools, government bodies, commercial enterprises carefully check for certification? I would be concerned about the potential for identity theft, and perhaps the DOH or Hawaii legislature was, too. This where we need a lawyer versed in state bureaucracy to help sort this out.
The law doesn’t forbid things allowed by the rules. What is forbidden is only what ISN’T authorized by the rules. There is no conflict.
A non-certified copy could not be used for identity fraud because it would not have the authenticating marks (seal and registrar’s signature). Only if you wanted to be President of the most powerful country on earth could you get away with using a non-authenticated document for identity fraud. If you wanted to play in Little League or anything else it would never work. That’s why identity fraud is not a concern.
What the BC gives that the index data doesn’t is the LEGAL STATUS of the records, because any legal disqualifiers are required to be noted on any BC the HDOH prints. And the public has a right to know the legal status. That is what the HDOH is hell-bent on hiding.
I see it differently - the two appear to conflict. The statute forbids anyone to even allow viewing of the certificates, so I have a hard time believing it would approve issuing noncertified copies to nonqualified applicants. Rather than asserting that I understand the legal ramifications when a statute forbids things that departmental rules from half a century ago allow, I’d like to hear from a lawyer on this.
If the HDOH had issued noncertified copies for other COLBs than Obama’s, you’d have a case for conspiracy and illegal behavior. You haven’t cited any instances of that. Until you do, I can’t see it as a conspiracy, but rather departmental mismanagement and confusion between the 1955 rules and the more recent, more restrictive statute.
Oh, Geeze... Sorry, I just read it as Lakin not Manning... Why did the poster bring up Manning on a thread about LTC Lakin? I don’t get the point.
Isn’t it stunning ? ...the cavalier attitudes expressed here
by some at the dangerous reality that apparently our
government machinery and laws DO NOT absolutely prevent
the possibility of a secretive, malevolent, ineligible
tyrant from cunnily scheming his way into our White House,
with the help of a completely shielding complicit press and
brainwashed, uninformed citizenry, then pompously and
nonchalantly uttering the cynical retorts ...”go pass a
law” ..or “get a senator to have hearings” ..or “just vote
him out in 2012?”
It reminds me of the coldhearted doctor referenced in those
Cancer Centers of America commercials...”Pam, you’ve got 3
months.” It’s the outrageously frigid, uncaring attitude.
How does an American who loves their country feel and
express such stark coldness and indifference at the
potential dissembling of our Constitution and the very
purposeful weakening of the greatest nation ever invisioned
on the face of the globe and her sovereignty, right before
their eyes?
I just don’t get it.
Confounds and saddens me, what it could possibly be worth
so much or little to them to accept and defend this disaster so casually.
They are expressing their opinions. I don't give them much more weight than I did to Merrill McPeak about Bush or Wesley Clark about anything.
As for Fundamentally Fair, I cannot comment. I have never seen their posts on this matter. I did a cursory search of FF’s post for the last four months and didn't see anything at all on this topic.
The Ombudsman told me - and should also have told the HDOH - that non-certified abbreviated certificates are disloseable to anyone who asks for them. That is because HRS 338-18(a) only forbids what isn’t already authorized by the laws or rules.
The rest of this post will address the question of whether Obama’s records are being treated differently, and what is being done to try to hide whether (that) his records are being treated differently.
Verifications are also lawful to be disclosed to people who meet the qualifications, but Janice Okubo told me that they don’t issue verifications.
I can’t disclose specific details without the permission of the person who has the experience, but I can say that according to a worker at the HDOH, the HDOH refers qualified verification requests to the AG to figure out how to handle a dilemma they have: the feds have told the HDOH they can’t release anything of Obama’s and if they release a verification for somebody else as prescribed by law it will prove that they are treating Obama’s records differently. So the only way to hide that they are treating Obama’s records differently is to refuse to make disclosures for ANYBODY. How to justify that when it is clearly in violation of the law is the dilemma the AG is trying to solve.
The last I had heard, they were telling my colleague that their office is so backlogged that they can’t get to her request. How long do you think that can go on? (And I’ve got postmarked proof that their office was NOT too “backlogged” to fill a request of mine within the 10-day deadline required by the OIP, in the same time period that her request was made).
Notice that’s what they did with long-form birth certificates also. They SAID to us haoles that they don’t issue long-form BC’s any more. But there is video footage of them doing just that in their office. Why did they tell the whole world something that wasn’t true? Because they had to provide a (false) excuse for why Obama wouldn’t release his long-form. They can’t say that they don’t print OBAMA’S long-form any more, which is what they really mean - because it would prove they are treating Obama’s records differently, so they lied to the whole world by saying they can’t disclose ANY long-forms.
Furthermore, I spoke to a worker at the vital records office myself. When we couldn’t find any record of my request in the system even though I had received e-mailed responses from hdohinfo, the worker suddenly asked me if the request was about Obama. I asked if it would make any difference. She said that all requests about Obama are supposed to go through Okubo’s office instead of to the fulfillment department to be filled according to the laws and rules. Okubo is the watchdog for Obama’s records. She’s “Baghdad Bob”.
And BTW, Okubo considers all index data requests to be “about Obama” - according to her own words in a UIPA response to the AP’s Mark Niesse - a copy of which I got through my own UIPA request. And index data requests, incidentally, are required to be snail-mailed, which means that if you don’t sent it with delivery confirmation you will never hear back from them (speaking from my experience and that of others; and even with delivery confirmation the HDOH has denied that they’ve gotten requests), and you are subject to the delays of the postal system. So what Okubo considers to be requests about Obama ARE treated blatantly differently.
Furthermore, in a single day a colleague sent in 2 separate index data requests - one for someone having the last name of Dunham and the other being a control group with no visible connection to Obama. She received a response for the non-Dunham name a month earlier than for the Dunham request, as she was told the Dunham one had experienced a “delay”.
What’s going on at the HDOH is NOT just an administrative SNAFU. The rule-breaking and law-breaking is too pervasive and targeted, and the lying too blatant for it to be just a SNAFU.
Fox News? Some guy two years ago claimed they were being threatened, IIRC. Not a peep about that since. Maybe Fox News doesn't want to talk about this issue because they think it's misguided at best or nutty and detrimental at worst.
Judge Thomas? B, he was making a joke. There's a history of Thomas and that fellow jesting about the issue of whether or not a Peurto Rican would be an NBC. Instead of accepting that he was making a joke you chose to search for explanations that supported your presumptions. Explanations such as Soros blackmailing them USSC and the USSC kowtowing to him on the mater.
Unethical actions by eligibility judges? There haven't been. But you choose to believe that there have and to explain why nobody in the system calls them on it you seem to resort to expanding the conspiracy to include more and more folks.
If you are feeling torn, take some time away from this B. It's Christmas. Turn off the computer, set aside Obama and focus on the family.
And when, Lord willing, the Presidency moves out of Democrat hands, you'll see the pendulum swing Left and it will become more clear that dots can be connected by anyone who decides they really ought to be connected.
If the minutiae of the legalities are such that they contradict the bigger picture that is taught throughout the system, so that the JAG’s world and understanding is diametrically opposed to the world of the people leading and teaching the military structure, that’s a very, very serious “disconnect”.
It’s sort of like saying that the earth is spherical, except to scientists who do the calculations. If the calculations come up with the earth being flat even while the scientific community as a whole (as well as photographic evidence) says it’s spherical, then we have a problem because there are inconsistencies between the bigger picture and the minutiae.
If the military leaders and teachers (and the 4 legal references I’ve given) say the world is spherical (lawfulness of combat orders depends on authorization from the President), but the JAG’s say that according to the minutiae the world is flat (no presidential authorization needed for combat orders to be lawful), then there is a problem with how the minutiae (codes) are put together because they haven’t been encoded to say what everybody thought they were saying.
Vital records authorized under chapter 338 Hawaiian Revised Statutes are not available for or open to public inspection. Access to the records, including copies or information from them is not permitted except as provided by law or regulations the Department of Health may promulgate.Section 2.3 says:
The applications must contain... [name, address, etc.] and must establish their right as provided herein to the information shown on the certificate.
You state they don't release verifications for anyone because "the feds have told the HDOH they can’t release anything of Obama’s and if they release a verification for somebody else as prescribed by law it will prove that they are treating Obama’s records differently. " I tend not to rely on "a person in the office told me" type stuff, having been around bureaucratic rumor mills (hospitals, in my case) for too long. A simple test should be if they released verifications for anyone prior to 2008 but after the 1977 statute. Is there evidence for that? Is there evidence of a noncertified copy of a COLB being provided to a nonqualified applicant in that time frame?
I don't put delays in the same category, as they have said they have a much higher volume of requests for Obama data than for anyone else's.
They SAID to us haoles that they don’t issue long-form BC’s any more. But there is video footage of them doing just that in their office. This might be evidence I'd believe. So
Why assume they were censored or threatened? Maybe they thought the issue was so ridiculous it would just make them look silly? Like they never report on the dozens of lawsuits filed in federal court every year (and there are-- citations on request) claiming that the 16th Amendment was never ratified and the income tax is unconstitutional? Or they never report on the truther lawsuits regarding 9/11? Or dozens of other crackpot theories that are brought before the federal courts?
And why would Clarence Thomas, who prides himself on valuing the Constitution, admit that they were “evading” a valid and pressing Constitutional issue? It doesn’t make sense.
You are missing the context there. Every year-- and this started long before Obama ever ran for President-- Congressman Jose Serrano asks Thomas if he (Serrano, born in Puerto Rico) is eligible to run for President. Every year, Thomas tells him that the issue has never come before SCOTUS. When Serrano asked him for the 10th or 12th time, Thomas said "you know we're evading that," and everyone laughed. It's their standard joke.
Why are the eligibility judges almost all doing things that are blatantly unethical during the time that they are presiding over these cases?
None of these judges has domne anything unethical. And if you go back to the very first time the Obama eligibility issue was raised on FR, I, and almost every other Freeper lawyer, predicted that every single eligibility lawsuit would be bounced on grounds of standing or justiciability. This is just obvious stuff to anyone who had a year of law school. That is why none of the serious conservative lawyers (people like the Thomas Moore Center, the American Center for Law and Justice, even Judicial Watch) wants anything to do with eligibility suits and they are being left to incompetent fringe lawyers like Orly Tatiz (who, before she began the eligibility suits, had never represented anyone in court except for defending herself against dental malpractice cases).
But regarding the Soros speculation, the pieces of the puzzle fit, and there are things that just don’t make sense without the Soros piece.
Even in conspiracy theories, Occam's razor still applies-- the simpler explanation is almost always more likely than the one that requires you to believe a dozen unproven assumptions. That Al Quaeda conspired to bring down the World Trade Center is more likely than that George Bush and the U.S Military conspired to start a war on Iraq. If George Soros wanted to install a puppet president, he could have corrupted Hillary Clinton, or found another Democratic stooge, rather than picking a foreign-born candidate that would require him to commit dozens of felonies any one of which might have led to his discovery and destruction. If Soros picked Obama to run, you can bet he vetted his NBC status.
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.