Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
I forgot to address something. How is ordering a copy of my Original Long Form going outside normal Bureaucracy??? Seriously, there are lots of reasons to need a copyu, and Hawaii has an ESTABLISHED procedure for doing so. It is literally trashing its own procedures! They let requests sit for MONTHS on end in the office of Onaka HIMSELF rather than follow their own State Law MANDATED procedures! WTF!? That is literally my experience of it.
Requesting the documents that I have a legal RIGHT to is NOT going outside any procedure. It is a NORMAL function of the Department.
Or it was... Until Obama came along with his late filed Birth Records which ALSO expose decades of Welfare and Citizenship fraud on the part of the State of Hawaii! THEN it becomes somehow abnormal???
Come on give me a break. That is at best asinine.
You are ignoring that the law only forbids disclosures not already authorized by the rules.
As you noted, the rules say in Section 2.1A (emphasis mine):
“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. ***
So then you look to the law to see what the law permits. And the law (HRS 338-18a) only forbids whatever isn’t already authorized by the rules or laws. The rest of HRS 338-18 applies to direct viewing of the original documents and certified copies so none of it applies to non-certified abbreviated certificates.
The law and rules do not contradict each other.
The independent statements of two different HDOH workers isn’t enough. Instead, I need to find the needle in the haystack, someone’s fulfilled UIPA request for somebody else’s non-certified COLB - a needle which wouldn’t exist in this case because UIPA requests are only required to be kept for 2 years. Two years ago the election was already done. They had already been refusing (for over 5 months by then) to disclose a long-form BC to the registrant, which is a direct violation of UIPA.
What you are saying, then, is that you will never believe, no matter how many HDOH workers say the same thing.
At least we have that straight now.
Here’s the video: http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/some-tropical-truth/
Another post addressing whether the woman ordering the BC on the video was Danae, at: http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/breaking-support-for-my-video-woman-ordering-her-long-form-bc-in-hi/
I wonder if he’ll have to pay some money back for his med degree.
And so here we are, we disagree.
I think you have arrived at incorrect conclusions. You believe you have concluded correctly.
There’s no place to go from here, but what is important is that we are clear as to where we differ.
As the years pass and this issue continues to go nowhere, I remain hopeful that you will start to consider that perhaps, just perhaps, you have been mistaken.
So we shall see what the future brings.
Nope. Your first analogy was perfect for the situation.
He’s a Lt Colonel. I would think he’d have his commitment completed by now.
I was careful in that analogy to use the word “spherical” rather than “sphere”, and to have the researchers claiming that the earth was flat - because what we need is a situation where the two claims are not nuanced versions of each other but flat opposites.
My point is that “nuances” don’t explain flat-out contradictions. Not-exactly-flat and Not-exactly spherical can be fudged around, as you amply illustrated. The numerical illustration involves direct opposites, which makes it more applicable to what we’ve got here.
The “experts” say that the President is irrelevant to the lawfulness of combat orders. McInerney, Vallely, Fundamentally Fair, and 4 different references from the actual legally-binding documents - AND these experts themselves when it’s a case other than this one, such as the Iran scenario - all say that brigade commanders cannot issue lawful combat orders without the approval of the President, so the lawfulness is absolutely dependent on legal authorization from the President. (And even Lind’s ruling acknowledges that the President is relevant because she bothers to “note” that Obama is the President, which makes no sense for her to note if it’s irrelevant. What she wants to be irrelevant is whether Obama “acting as President” is contrary to the Constitution.)
Those are mutually exclusive claims. There is no wiggle room to come with mutually exclusive claims. Which makes the 2nd analogy more applicable.
I have no idea what Fundamentally Fair think on this matter. I haven't seen any of FF posts. If you want to invoke FF as an authority on this matter you should do them the courtesy of pinging FF and asking their take on the matter now that it has wrapped up.
As for you opinions on this, there's not much I can do for you on that. The world has this nasty tendency to not do things the way we think it ought to.
“...all say that brigade commanders cannot issue lawful combat orders without the approval of the President, so the lawfulness is absolutely dependent on legal authorization from the President.”
One last thought... This is the source of your problem, the category error I spoke of before.
Butterdezillion does not think that BHO is President.
The US Military, The Legislative Branch, the Judicial Branch, The Executive branch and the State Governments do think the BHO is President.
Until you can those two groups together you aren’t going to get anywhere.
If you don’t want to accept my interpretation, then take these very “experts” on the Iran scenario. In THAT scenario, they say that not only would the orders be unlawful, but brigade commanders would be court-martialed themselves for issueing combat orders without authorization from the President.
Even though they claim in the Lakin case that valid authorization from the President is “irrelevant” to the lawfulness of combat orders.
And look at Lind’s ruling, herself. Why did she mention the electoral vote or Obama’s oath of office? According to her own ruling, Obama’s Constitutional status is irrelevant. So why mention him at all then?
These people know they’re chasing their tails. They know their logic is not internally consistent. The Iran scenario reveals it all.
I don’t know whether he is the President or not. Depends on whether the breach of the law in the electoral vote count invalidates the declaration of Obama as the electoral winner.
But I do know, for a fact, that Obama could not have “qualified” by Jan 20, 2009 because even his age can not be legally determined until the actual amended BC from Hawaii is presented as evidence to a legal authority.
And I know that the 20th Amendment says that if the President elect has failed to qualify by Jan 20th the Vice President elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified.”
Whether Obama is the president or not is irrelevant to the lawfulness of Lakin’s orders. Whether Obama can Constitutionally “ACT AS PRESIDENT” is absolutely critical, and I know that the Constitutional answer is that he cannot. I know that because that is what the 20th Amendment says flat-out.
You speak of character. There’s more to an oath, than just the words.
Sorry, but no. If the normal bureaucracy is “we’re going to give everyone a computer generated abstract” then ordering a copy of the original instead is indeed outside their normal procedure. That doesn’t make the delay right, it doesn’t mean you’re not entitled to it, but it does fit with what I’ve seen of bureaucracies.
Butter, I don’t think we’re going to agree on this until I hear from someone who really understands state law. If the statute says you can’t even look at the records without the proper qualifications, then the older rules saying you can have a noncertified copy seem suspect to me - I’d expect the more restrictive statute to be followed. If any of the lawyers would like to chime in, I’d love to hear an opinion. I know when hospitals are faced with what appears to be a conflict, they often err on restricting information, even absurdly sometimes.
As I said, proof that a noncertified COLB was issued between 1977 and 2008 would be very convincing.
And now to all, a good day. I’m for wrapping presents and distributing cookies to the neighbors for the rest of the day. Merry Christmas!
The two people from the Ombudsman’s Office that signed off on the e-mail response to me don’t really understand state law?
You could ask the OIP; they are supposed to interpret the disclosure laws. But I already did that and they said the HDOH gets to interpret the law. So I don’t know who you’re going to find that “really understands state law”. The Ombudsman and the HDOH disagree, and the OIP refuses to weigh in. The AG’s office has never even responded to any of my e-mails.
That by itself should tell you something.
Was the gal in the video who ordered her long-form at the HDOH office told she’d have to wait several months because what she was asking for was so abnormal for them that it had to be processed by Onaka himself?
Why do you think that is?
The trouble that Hawaii runs into is that in many instances there are control groups, so the standard answers they give can be seen for lies.
They tried telling me they had a 6-week backlog on mailed requests. I pointed out to them that I had a had an on-time response from them postmarked 6 weeks before they made that claim, so that if they were backlogged by 6 weeks they must not have done a single thing for the past 6 weeks. I asked if they really meant to say that, and if so, to show me the documents which state the salaries of that office so I could post on my blog how much money Hawaii taxpayers paid out to have the HDOH workers do nothing for 6 weeks.
They never clarified whether they really meant to say they were backlogged by 6 weeks. They just sent my money back and claimed that I had sent in $98.75 without ever sending a request with it. When I pointed out that they had already twice responded via e-mail to the request that I sent with my money, they said they had already given me an answer and weren’t going to respond to me any more.
BTW, the Ombudsman’s office has finally told me the result of their investigation into whether records were illegally disposed. Their conclusion to me was that I could get the computer-generated 1961 birth index if I sent in $98.75 to the HDOH.
Apparently the HDOH didn’t bother to tell them that they really didn’t mean what they said when they told me I couldn’t get the handwritten index but could get a computer-generated birth index for 1961 - because even though my money was in the HDOH office earlier in the morning that Okubo told Mark Niesse of the AP that anybody in the world could get a 1961 computer-generated birth index for $98.75, the HDOH sent my money back and eventually said that they CAN’T print out a 1961 birth index.
Well.... if they didn’t mean it and CAN’T physically do it, then why did they tell me that? Why did they tell the whole world that in an AP article that went worldwide?
The Ombudsman’s Office took the HDOH at their word and said I could get a computer-generated 1961 birth index for $98.75. They should have checked before responding to me, to find out what waffling, obfuscating, and rule-breaking the HDOH had decided to do in the meantime. The ombudsman’s office is SO behind the times if they think that what the HDOH said months ago is still what they claim today.
But the HDOH is who the OIP is allowing to decide what can and can’t be disclosed according to UIPA.
It’s absolutely, stark raving crazy. It is NOT normal function for the government attorneys who are getting paid big bucks to interpret the disclosure laws to just shrug and say, “Ah, whatever the agency wants to disclose is fine with us.”
BDZ, Obama is legally the president. You may suspect otherwise, you may even have some proof hanging around but he’s still LEGALLY the President.
If I were to go out tonight and murder someone, anyone who saw me could legitimately consider me a murderer but I’d be LEGALLY innocent of murder until I was charged, tried and convicted.
Until Congress impeaches Obama for ineligibility or something, anything else, he’ll stay the POTUS until his term finishes. As far as I can see, the entire judiciary, executive and legisislative arms of government appear to consider him a constitutionally qualified president.
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.