Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
Lakin Sentenced
1545: Sentence announced. Dismissal, confinement for 6 months, total forfeitures.
It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, it doesn’t make it true.
If two marry and one finds out later the other one is already married to someone else - one was not legally fit to marry. The marriage is null and void. It was NEVER legal. It’s time for you to get your head in gear!
Maybe it’s not true on your fantasy island but here in the real world Obama is in the Oval office. The military salute him, Congress sends legislation for signing and the Judiciary swore him in. That’s because he is recognised as the LEGAL sitting President.
The reason it is that way is because 60+ million crazies voted for him and because no-one has come up with any evidence that he shouldn’t be.
Thank you. That was exactly what I needed. I e-mailed him this morning and received this just now. I forwarded my message to Maj Kemkes:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO
Thank you for taking the time to express your opinion regarding LTC Lakin’s case. Please forward all matters concerning his clemency request to Major Matthew Kemkes (703.696.6700; matthew.kemkes@us.army.mil).
At the appropriate time Major Kemkes will submit his clemency matters to the convening authority (Major General Horst) for consideration. All matters must go through Major Kemkes in order to be considered.
Regards,
Rob
LTC Rob Manning
Director of Public Affairs
Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region
U.S. Army Military District of Washington
103 Third Avenue Bldg 32
Fort McNair, D.C. 20319
w-202.685.4899
cell-202.870.0183
alt cell-703.344.3239
robert.manning@jfhqncr.northcom.mil
ako: robert.manning1@us.army.mil
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO
Good... glad I found it.
Blessed, Peaceful Christmas to you and yours.
'the request involved “copies of all state police reports related to the Sept. 23, 2006, homicide-suicide of Wendy and James Dirk at their home...” '
Some differences from the situation you are trying to equate it to:
You also omit an interesting part of the opinion, after the portion on "widely known to the public":
Second and perhaps most importantly, the Freedom of Information Law is based upon a presumption of access. Stated differently, all records of an agency are available, except to the extent that records or portions thereof fall within one or more grounds for denial appearing in §87(2)(a) through (j) of the Law.
In other words, the most important point is the police must follow the Freedom of Information Law, except for those records excluded by law.
Find a judge who says "public interest" compels Hawaii's DOH to release information that is clearly protected by 338-18 (a) and (b). So far, despite many lawsuits, no judge has seen this your way.
Regan was born to two parents who were citizens, inside the mainland United States.
Obama has a British father who was never a citizen, and there is no legal proof he was born in the United States.
With Reagan, there is no question about his citizenship status. With Obama there IS.
Only when there is real question as to a persons heritage and birthplace is there REASON to demand such proof.
When such reason exists, then proofs should be offered.
Reagan was unquestionably a Natural Born Citizen, his papers, his history and the details of his life were all in the public eye long before he became Governor of California.
The only way one can equate the two men is to point out the start differences between the two, and to recognize that THIS is the reason the Founders put in the qualifications regarding Natural Born Citizenship. To prevent cretins like Barry from usurping power.
What you said!
The Founders would have no problem with Ronald Reagan as POTUS; he met the Constitutional qualifications. Not so with BO!
2. ALL state records fall under the UIPA, with exemptions listed for 'significant privacy interest,' except that those exemptions do not apply when public interest outweighs significant privacy. The one possible exemption here is part 92F-13, which says: "This part shall not require disclosure of: (4) Government records which, pursuant to state or federal law including an order of any state or federal court, are protected from disclosure ..." which would apply to vital records under 338-18(b), however this rule does not PROHIBIT disclosure of such records, only that disclosure is not required. The question is why hide the records when there's no compelling reason??
3. Yes, the individuals are deceased, but the opinion letter says, "it is clear that there may be an interest in protecting privacy in consideration of the deceased," so there's no real difference from Obama's vital records.
You also omit an interesting part of the opinion, after the portion on "widely known to the public":
It's irrelevant. The UIPA doesn't specifically prohibit the release of vital records.
Find a judge who says "public interest" compels Hawaii's DOH to release information that is clearly protected by 338-18 (a) and (b). So far, despite many lawsuits, no judge has seen this your way.
We're not talking about judges trying to compel the DOH to release this information. Ideally this shouldn't reqire a court of law at all, unless Obama felt like he needed to sue the DOH for releasing his records. I've said the UIPA would PROTECT the DOH from releasing the records voluntarily. They have no compelling reason NOT to release the vital records as there is no privacy interest and the UIPA does NOT prohibit disclosures of records protected by other parts of state law.
Second, you're misstating 338-18, as it doesn't prohibit any specific information from disclosure, but provides rules for how it can be disclosed and otherwise limits access to the inspection of records and the release of CERTIFIED copies of records. Information in the records may be released under parts a (as authorized by "rules adopted by the department of health"), c, d (which gives statutory authority to the director of the DOH to release ANY information to the public she feels is appropriate), e and f.
Again, if the information is already public (as presented by Obama's jpg of an alleged COLB), there is no compelling LEGAL reason the DOH cannot confirm it.
Nope. From UIPA Exceptions 92F-14
OIP has further recognized that an individual has a significant privacy interest in his or her home contact information, date of birth, and ethnicity.
ALL state records fall under the UIPA, with exemptions listed for 'significant privacy interest,' except that those exemptions do not apply when public interest outweighs significant privacy.
I suggest you also read the next part, on page 18
What is the public interest in disclosure?Not a word about "the public really, really wants to know."
- The public interest to be considered is the public’s interest in the disclosure of official information that sheds light on an agency’s performance of its statutory purpose and the conduct of government officials, or which otherwise promotes governmental accountability.
Note also page 21
Exception 4 – The Law or Order Exception (§92F-13(4)) An agency may withhold access to records that are protected from disclosure by a state or federal law or by a court order, for example, tax return information required to be kept confidential by statute. The term “law” does not include administrative rules, county charter provisions, or mayoral orders.
as it doesn't prohibit any specific information from disclosure, but provides rules for how it can be disclosed and otherwise limits access to the inspection of records and the release of CERTIFIED copies of records.
Read the statute again. I've bolded the relevant part so you can clearly see it:
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.
c, d (which gives statutory authority to the director of the DOH to release ANY information to the public she feels is appropriate), e and f.
Please go back and read the statute. Parts c allows for statistical data without identification to be used for research purposes. Part e allows for genealogic research on records over 75 years old. Part f has to do with allowing other federal and state agencies access to the data. These 3 sections have nothing to do with what we are discussing. My guess is you're hanging your hat on (d) so why throw in the others to mislead those who haven't read the statute? Here's (d):
(d) 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.
Some points to consider
That's the SAME section from where I quoted the criminal investigation sentence. Your excuses aren't holding up. And second, what part of Obama's date of birth do you think is still private??
I suggest you also read the next part, on page 18 ...
Right. Government accountability is certainly apropos in this case ... on many levels.
Not a word about "the public really, really wants to know."
Terrible strawman argument. These are YOUR words not mine. You're conveniently ignoring the constitutional requirement for presidential eligibility.
Read the statute again. I've bolded the relevant part so you can clearly see it:
You bolded EXACTLY what I just said. Are you incapable of reading and comprehending?? Let me break it down for you point by point:
Me: 'doesn't prohibit any specific information from disclosure'
Law: 'to disclose information contained in vital statistics records ... except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health'
Part D of the statute allows name, gender, event type and ANY OTHER DATA as authorized by the director of the DOH. No SPECIFIC data is prohibited in this statute. It doesn't say, any other data except XXX and XXX.
Me: 'limits access to the inspection of records'
Law: 'it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of ... except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health'
Does that NOT limit access to the records??
Me: "limits ... the release of CERTIFIED copies of records"
Law: "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"
Part B says, "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 parts list different ways different groups of persons can get either uncertified copies of record, index data or verification. The administrative rules say that 'abbreviated' records may be issued to anyone who asks for one.
Some points to consider The DOH director has released the index data.
The law says the director can release MORE than just the default data. An opinion letter from the OIP in 1990 said "Index data consisting of name, age, and sex of the registrant and date, type and file number of the vital event and such other data as the director may authorize may be made available to the public."
This means the DOH could easily and LEGALLY confirm the certificate number shown on the factlack dot org photos. Yet, for no compelling reason, the DOH has REFUSED. Why?? Also, this opinion letter confrms the date of birth IS allowable, unlike 92F-14 of the UIPA says.
Bottom line - if Hawaii issued this information for some certificates and not others, it would clearly be illegal. No one has yet shown that is happening.
It wouldn't be illegal at all. They're not being asked to do it for 'some certificates.' This is another strawman. You're making excuses, not stating law. Learn the difference.
The public interest to be considered is the public’s interest in the disclosure of official information that sheds light on an agency’s performance of its statutory purpose and the conduct of government officials, or which otherwise promotes governmental accountability.Your theory that they are obligated to release Obama's certificate doesn't show how it "shed's light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties" for the state of Hawaii. And that's what you'd have to show. "Constitutional eligibilty" is a federal issue. Hawaii DOH is not involved. If you think they are obligated under their "public interest" definition, take it to court and see how far you get.
Next, you originally said in #790 "you're misstating 338-18, as it doesn't prohibit any specific information from disclosure." Let's look at the word you conveniently left off, shall we?
it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose informationSo yes, it does prohibit disclosure, except for very narrow circumstances, which legislators took the trouble to spell out in 338-18 (b). They have made it clear that very limited data is excepted, the rest is protected unless you are a qualifying applicant. This is where I and Butter disagree. She feels, as you obviously do, that the 1955 rules should be followed. I think that the 1977 statute made it clear that Hawaii is protecting this data. If the statute forbids even inspection of the data, why would you think their intent was to allow uncertified copies of the data? As LL said, statutes trump department rules.
The law says the director can release MORE than just the default data. An opinion letter from the OIP in 1990 said "Index data consisting of name, age, and sex of the registrant and date, type and file number of the vital event and such other data as the director may authorize may be made available to the public."
I hate to break this to you, but the letter from 1990 is quoting the then existing section 338-18(d). If you look at the current 338-18 (d) [amended in 1991, 1997, and 2001] it does not say that anymore. The statute now only specifies name, and sex of the registrant and type of vital event. The data you are arguing for was amended out of 338-18 at the latest in 2001. Further, the letter supports what I've been saying - the intent of the statute was to protect data except when the applicant has met the qualifications laid out in 338-18.
It wouldn't be illegal at all. They're not being asked to do it for 'some certificates.' This is another strawman. You're making excuses, not stating law. Learn the difference.
You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. You'd have a case for illegal behavior at the DOH if you could prove that some certificates were treated differently. Without that, you have no case for illegal behavior. You seem to think the DOH director is illegally withholding data. Since the law says "may"release additional data, the director has some latitude, but to show she's breaking the law, you'd have to show she disclosed specific data about some people but not about others. There's no illegality if she has discretion to disclose additional data, but decides not to for everyone. You haven't shown anything illegal, and the ombudsman does not agree with you.
Google "de facto officer doctrine."
Why google it, read the precedental cases. Obama if found ineligible would not come under the De Facto Officer Doctrine.
No need to.
You claimed these laws would make the disclosure of Obama's records illegal and I've shown specically why that's wrong. Second, you made a comment about the DOH doing this for 'some certificates and not others.' We're not talking about 'some certicates,' just one, so that was part of an excuse, not a citation of law.
You could rebut, but you don't.
I've responded point by point and rebutted everything of substance you've posted.
I think that's because you aren't thinking of the legal issues, only emotional ones.
Right, I've only posted relevant statutes, adminstrative rules and an opinion letter for 'emotional reasons.' Sorry, this is a nonsense strawman. You have nothing so you're trying to make the argument personal.
The part of UIPA I cited on page 18 clearly lays out Hawaii's definition of the Public Interest.
I addressed this: The public interest in this case is about 'governmental accountability,' which is in the the part you cited. Reread my previous post. It's there.
Your theory that they are obligated to release Obama's certificate doesn't show how it "shed's light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties" for the state of Hawaii.
I didn't make this argument that said anyone was 'obligated' to release Obama's certificate, only that the law doesn't prevent anyone from releasing the certificate and/or confirming its authenticity and accuracy. I posted supporting reasons why.
Let's look at the word you conveniently left off, shall we?
I didn't leave off any words. You're also apparently not understanding what I wrote or ignoring it.
This is where I and Butter disagree. She feels, as you obviously do, that the 1955 rules should be followed. I think that the 1977 statute made it clear that Hawaii is protecting this data.
The rules butter pointed to are current rules. It doesn't matter when they were implemented. These rules are still posted and active on the DOH website.
As LL said, statutes trump department rules.
The statute doesn't trump department rules because it DEFERS to department rules in 338-18(a). Read it again. "as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health"
The data you are arguing for was amended out of 338-18 at the latest in 2001.
The default data was amended out, but was not PROHIBITED from release. The director of the DOH still has statutory authority to release ANY data she feels is appropriate and NONE of the data is specified by law as inappropriate. Remember in the UIPA, you quoted a part that said date of birth was considered part of a significant privacy interest. There's nothing in 388-18(d) that makes a comparable limitation on types of data. The director can choose what to release and she can cite public interest as the basis for her decision to release such information.
You'd have a case for illegal behavior at the DOH if you could prove that some certificates were treated differently.
From who?? We're talking about ONE certificate. Who is going to challenge the DOH over the disclosure of this one certificate or the information from it?? Be specific. Support your belief on this.
***New update:
Family Representative for Political Prisoner LTC Terry Lakin Speaks Out - 12/21/10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbbJaOTbj2Q
FYI - Ltc Lakin spent $180,000 of his own money
on this.
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.