Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
Lakin Sentenced
1545: Sentence announced. Dismissal, confinement for 6 months, total forfeitures.
I must have responded to somebody else, then, when I said I had asked my senator about it and he said I should pay my taxes.
And then I mentioned that David, here at FR, had noted that laws don’t have to be signed by the POTUS to take effect. As long as a bill was not vetoed by a valid POTUS, they would take effect regardless of the POTUS.
So the authority to tax me belongs to Congress with or without a valid President’s signature.
Incidentally, that is different than the situation with Lakin, though, because combat orders HAVE to be approved by “the President” and CANNOT be contrary to the Constitution. So there has to be a Constitutionally-valid approval by the POTUS before the SecDef can implement a plan regarding the use of force.
That’s why Lind’s argument falls apart when you look at the actual legally-binding documents.
And that’s also why Lakin’s orders are different from orders to clean latrines. You don’t have to have Presidential authorization to do the normal duties that are governed by regulations. That’s why Lakin could in good conscience obey the orders he received up until the combat orders came along. The other orders can be legally valid based on the structure of the military and the authorizations in the regulations, etc.
That could be why Lakin was able to say that the orders he pleaded guilty to were lawful orders. But combat is a different thing. The 4 legal sources I’ve mentioned ALL agree that Constitutional and lawful authorization from a (Constitutional, lawful) POTUS is critical to the lawfulness of combat orders.
Notice that the order directly related to his deployment order is the one Lakin did NOT plead guilty to, and it is the one which REQUIRES valid Presidential authorization in order to be lawful, according to all 4 legal sources I’ve cited.
Throw the bum out and lower our taxes. Even so to have the usurper expelled would be far more valuable than to have lower taxes. Higher taxes can be temporary but the damage to our Country and Constitution if not dealt with may be very long lasting and likely permanent. The costs are not even to be compared.
Thanks for the answer.
You’re very welcome.
Please link to Alfred Itamura’s letter or email so we can see what he says. You say he “implies” rather than states that the noncertified COLB must be sent. This sounds open to interpretation, and not a clear “HDOH is illegally hiding ...” type conclusion.
“And, for you, I am also sure that materialism always trumps doing the right thing.”
Easy to say, my anonymous posting friend. Ask yourself whether you would do what this man did...up for 06 and threw it away for this birther thing? If he is right, then everyone in the military who follows orders is illegitimate, reading some of the ‘logic’ in here. This is not a Patrick Henry moment.
He acknowledges that the HDOH CAN disclose the non-certified abbreviated BC, which means that the HDOH’s whole line about being forbidden is nonsense.
He says if I believe I am still entitled to receive it, I should contact the OIP who handles UIPA. I had made reference to UIPA in my request, and how the UIPA Manual says that a record that is not forbidden from disclosure by law (and Itamura acknowledges that disclosure of the non-certified COLB is not forbidden) is considered public and disclosure can only be denied if it meets at least one of the exemption requirements.
I did contact the OIP and they said (basically) that the DOH gets to interpret what 338-18 means, so if they say 338-18a forbids disclosure of what the Administrative Rules allows then that’s that. IOW, they totally abdicated their duty, since THEY are the ones who are supposed to interpret and apply UIPA.
Here is Itamura’s response:
This is in response to your complaint that the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) has denied your request for a noncertified abbreviated copy of the birth certificate of President Barack Obama. You cited Section 2.5 B.(2) of DOH Public Health Regulations, Chapter 8B, as the basis for your request.
We reviewed DOH Public Health Regulations, Chapter 8B, titled “Vital Statistics Registration and Records,” and note that its purpose in part is to establish instructions and procedures relating to disclosure of vital records. Section 2.5, “Eligibility for Copies of Birth Certificates,” states in paragraph B.(2):
“Abbreviated Copy
. . . .
(2) A non-certified copy containing only such information as is listed in accordance with Section 2.2 may be issued to any person or organization requesting it.”
Section 2.2 states:
“List of Events
The Director of Health shall make available for public information current lists of vital statistics events, including marriage license applications, by posting same in the State Health Department, Kinau Hale building, Honolulu, or the District Health Offices on Hawaii, Maui and Kauai or by providing the same to the local newspapers on request. Only such identifying information for each event shall be included as the Director of Health considers appropriate.
A. No address shall be included in such lists unless approval is given by the registrants in cases of marriage license applications and marriage certificates and by one of the parents in the case of births.
B. Any report or information which in the judgment of the Director of Health may harm the character or reputation of a person involved shall be omitted from the lists.
C. No illegitimate birth shall be included in any list prepared under this section.”
We find that the above-cited rules do not require the DOH to provide you with a noncertified abbreviated copy of President Obama’s birth certificate. Instead, since Section 2.5 specifically provides that a noncertified abbreviated copy of a birth certificate “may be issued,” it affords the DOH Director the discretionary authority to issue or not issue such copy. The rules do require, however, that the DOH Director make available for public information current lists of vital statistics events, with the provision that only information considered appropriate by the DOH Director shall be included in such lists. According to the DOH, the current lists of vital statistics events consist of the same information that is required to be provided to the public under Section 338-18(d), Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS).
We reviewed Chapter 338, HRS, titled “Vital Statistics.” Section 338-18(d), HRS, states, “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.” The DOH Director has not authorized any other data not listed in Section 338-18(d), HRS, to be made public. Index data, including index data regarding President Obama’s birth, is available for inspection at the DOH Office of Health Status Monitoring. The index data reported for President Obama is:
Birth Index
Obama II, Barack Hussein
Male
Based on the foregoing, we do not find the DOH’s denial of your request for a noncertified abbreviated copy of President Obama’s birth certificate to be unreasonable.
If you maintain that you are entitled to receive a noncertified abbreviated copy of President Obama’s birth certificate, we suggest that you contact the Office of Information Practices (OIP), which administers Chapter 92F, HRS, titled “Uniform Information Practices Act.” The contact information for the OIP is as follows:
Office of Information Practices
State of Hawaii
No. 1 Capitol District Building
250 South Hotel Street, Suite 107
Honolulu, HI 96813
Tel: 808-586-1400
Fax: 808-586-1412
Email: oip@hawaii.gov
As we do not believe we can be of further assistance to you in this matter, we will be closing your case in our files.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ ALFRED Y. ITAMURA
Analyst
Approved by:
ROBIN K. MATSUNAGA
Ombudsman, State of Hawaii
One other quick note on this. All the communication with the HDOH on this request - and it went on practically FOREVER - involved their telling me that they CAN’T disclose this because of HRS 338-18a, and how the Administrative Rules weren’t really talking about a certificate, they were just talking about index data, etc. Blah, blah, blah.
Gaslighting and sand-bagging. I now know the proper terminology for Okubo’s job description. lol.
So anyway, after Itamura concluded that their response was not UNREASONABLE I e-mailed him back to ask if he was going to make sure the HDOH knew that the reason they have been giving (We CAN’T disclose this because of HRS 338-18a) is dead wrong, and require them to give an accurate answer.
He never responded to my question in any way whatsoever.
Aye, there’s the rub.
They contradict because you say they contradict?
This is where things go off to left field a bit.
The judge doesn’t seem to agree with you. I have yet to see a comment from a JAG or former JAG that agrees with you. Lakin’s lawyer doesn’t even agree with you.
In the course of my life I have learned, occasionally the hard way, that the lay person seldom grasps the true limits of their knowledge on a subject. And that experience has a very real value.
So I find myself generally disinclined to think that that lay persons have a more correct grasp of matters than folks who specialize in those matters.
It’s not that I am blindly trusting “experts”, or think that you are stupid. It’s a simple understanding that I have. When someone deals with a matter for a living they are probably going to have a much better handle on it than someone who does not.
As the old canard goes: The race is not always to the swift, nor the fight to the strong. But, that is the way to bet.
We find that the above-cited rules do not require the DOH to provide you with a noncertified abbreviated copy of President Obama’s birth certificate.and
We reviewed Chapter 338, HRS, titled “Vital Statistics.” Section 338-18(d), HRS, states, “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.” The DOH Director has not authorized any other data not listed in Section 338-18(d), HRS, to be made publicThis looks fairly straightforward - the ombudsman's office concludes that HDOH is not legally required to provide a noncertified copy, and that they are legally required to release index data. HDOH is following 338-18, a statute enacted in 1977 as far as I can tell, much later than the 1955 rules document. Where the statute conflicts with the rules document, they follow the statute.
But B, when you postulate conspiracies involving hundreds of people of both parties. Conspiracies that have managed to stay perfectly leak-tight for years.
Well, a person can expect to get needled a bit when they do that.
butterdezillion, I'm sorry if post #615 offended you, but it did not personally attack you or anyone else here. FR has rules against profanity and personal attacks but none that I am aware of against being snarky. What I was trying to convey is that I do think, quite frankly, that some of your theories are rather far-fetched. (For example, I honestly cannot conceive of all nine Supreme Court justices being threatened and not saying anything about it.) Having said all that, I genuinely did not mean to cause you any personal offense.
You’re blowing off McInerney and Vallely again. And Fundamentally Fair, who has taught this stuff. Just because the people who agree are not on these particular threads doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
And I have asked for responses and rebuttals on the specific texts that I cited. Crickets, except for people saying I don’t know what I’m talking about, or that since Obama is the president it doesn’t matter if he is CONSTITUTIONALLY either the President OR able to “act as President even if he is the President. If the Constitution doesn’t allow him to either be or “act as” the President, then it doesn’t matter if he occupies the White House. It’s not occupying the White House that makes him able to have lawful authority. What gives the authority is the Constitution and laws.
And for those who say that all that matters is that Obama is the President - isn’t that an admission that the President IS relevant to the lawfulness of the orders? IOW, isn’t that actually agreeing with me that a valid POTUS approving the combat orders is required for those orders to be lawful?
If so, then even Lind herself agrees that her ruling (that the POTUS is irrelevant) is a bunch of baloney because then she mentions Obama being the president. See, her ruling is internally inconsistent. Why does she even take judicial notice of anything about Obama if he is irrelevant to the lawfulness of combat orders?
I’ve asked that, and nobody has answered it. That is why I say that the “experts” won’t engage. Buckeye Texan is the one who has been willing to engage. My respect for him has grown much in all this. I don’t necessarily agree with all his analysis, just as he doesn’t necessarily agree with mine, but we’re both willing to engage. When he sees the snag where we differ he’s willing to deal with it and to dig for answers. I have to respect and appreciate that, and I have to wonder why the “experts”, who surely must have the answers moreso than we non-experts, don’t seem willing to engage.
They’re not legally REQUIRED to disclose it under the Administrative Rules, but they ARE required to disclose it under UIPA. Itamura is only processing this according to the Administrative Rules and HRS 338. And his conclusion is that the HDOH can disclose the record but doesn’t have to. If you look only at the Administrative Rules, the word used in almost all cases is “may”. So if it was just Administrative Rules involved, the HDOH wouldn’t have to issue copies of anything.
But I just noticed HRS 338-13. That REQUIRES the HDOH to issue certified copies, the contents of a certificate, or any part thereof to any applicant in accordance with HRS 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18. So that means that what is authorized for release to an applicant by 16, 17, and 18 are REQUIRED to be released. That takes it out of the “may” realm and into the “shall” realm.
AND under UIPA, any records whose disclosure is not FORBIDDEN by law are considered discloseable public records. A non-certified abbreviated birth, death, or marriage certificate is a PUBLIC RECORD, because HRS 338-18(a)defers to the Administrative Rules, which authorize the public disclosure of those records.
What Itamura is saying in this response is that the combination of HRS 338-18a and the Administrative Rules mean that Fukino CAN disclose the record. And UIPA says that if the record CAN be disclosed it MUST be disclosed.
There are 2 legs in this relay. Itamura took the first leg, acknowledging that the records CAN be disclosed - which totally contradicts what the HDOH has been claiming all along. Then OIP was supposed to take the other leg and apply UIPA to the situation, which says that if it CAN be disclosed, it MUST.
Not surprisingly to me, the OIP balked. If what Joesting gave me for an answer was accurate, then the OIP should be disbanded because they don’t have any job to do; the agencies themselves get to decide what they will or won’t disclose, and UIPA doesn’t mean anything. That’s pretty much what the “Vexatious Requestor Bill” was trying to accomplish anyway - to neuter UIPA. If that’s the case, I say Hawaii could solve a lot of their fiscal problems by just getting rid of the OIP altogether, since they don’t do anything.
I've heard it's being worked on in a number of states but do not have hard data on current status. Anyone heard about their state?
The conspiracies have not been leak-proof for a couple years. That’s what I’ve been saying. There’s all kinds of evidence of the particular individuals and agencies involved.
The Soros part is speculation; that I will grant. And I’ve tried to say outright that I don’t have proof of anything for that speculation. I’ve been prepared to be ridiculed on that because I don’t have the proof. And I am not offended by LL’s mockery because I expected it; that’s what you get when you post speculation without giving all your reasons. When I have the time to devote a couple weeks to putting all my reasons together perhaps I’ll do that. Mostly I wanted you to realize that politeness of verbiage isn’t necessarily the same thing as dealing with other people in a respectful way. Something I need to be reminded of also, because I have been really cranky lately.
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.
For instance, why would Fox News submit to censorship of the eligibility issue at the threat of Obama annihilating them after the election, if by simply reporting the threats made Fox could have ensured that Obama sat in jail rather than the White House? The FCC threat by itself would be a vain threat. There had to be something more.
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.
Why are the eligibility judges almost all doing things that are blatantly unethical during the time that they are presiding over these cases?
I don’t have 2 weeks right now to devote to this. I’m torn in a million different directions because there’s so much to do on the elgibility front as well as things at home. So I can’t give all my reasons now. I listed a few of the reasons I have these suspicions, in a very long post a while back; that’s what I had time for. Without all the dots and a wide-angle view, a newspaper looks like isolated dots that make no sense, but when more dots fill in the space and you step back to see it all together, an image forms.
Those who say that more dots actually makes a bigger, more unbelievable “conspiracy” have accepted an epistemology that ensures they will never be able to see a big picture that they can actually believe. If it has a lot of dots connected it’s incredible; if the dots don’t form solid lines there are too many holes in it. See what I mean?
“And then I mentioned that David, here at FR, had noted that laws don’t have to be signed by the POTUS to take effect. As long as a bill was not vetoed by a valid POTUS, they would take effect regardless of the POTUS.”
I think the laws have to be presented to the President. He can permit them to become law by not vetoing them, but they cannot become law without being given to the President for action.
Thus, every law passed since 20 Jan 2009 is invalid IF, as you say, Obama is not able to give valid orders or take valid actions. So you have an obligation to disobey those laws, IF you believe Lakin was right to disobey.
But of course, no one is doing this because there is no advantage to anyone to do so - just as there was nothing achieved by Lakin.
You cannot pick and choose. You cannot say some orders are valid because they don’t require the President, and others are not because they do. The decision on how many men to have in the military runs through the President. Military pay runs through the President. So no one has a valid reason to be in the military or paid without the President’s approval.
No offense taken. I was just trying to point out that politeness isn’t necessarily the same thing as engaging with the content.
You think the Soros stuff is far-fetched. I expected that there would be people who say that. That’s why a person has to be a bit tongue-in-cheek when they offer up a theory they can’t necessarily prove. A person has to be secure enough to put their reasoning out there and let people weigh it in their own minds.
I don’t think there’s any way this theory could be proven, unless the parties involved came forward with the stories.
That’s actually what happened to reveal the threats Soros had made on the media heads. Now when I go back and look at what was happening in the media circles at the time, looking for clues as to exactly when this happened, things that didn’t make sense before suddenly pop into focus.
Ridicule doesn’t really accomplish much, which is why I don’t have a whole lot of interest in it. If somebody can challenge my connections or conclusions by presenting logic or additional facts I consider that person to be a friend (after I pick myself up off the floor. lol). I want to test my theories. I expect some people to hear what I’ve said and walk as quickly as they can from me on the other side of the street. lol. It’s still disappointing because I’d rather find out what they see as the flaws so I gain perspective, but I do understand it and I’m not offended by it.
Are there laws that specifically require that the President approve those things you mentioned - the size of the military and the pay?
How would we find out whether a law has to be presented to a valid Constitutional president before they can become law?
they ARE required to disclose it under UIPA.
UIPA has several exclusions, including
"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.
HRS 338-13. That REQUIRES the HDOH to issue certified copies, the contents of a certificate, or any part thereof to any applicant in accordance with HRS 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18. So that means that what is authorized for release to an applicant by 16, 17, and 18 are REQUIRED to be released.
You cite 338-13, -16, -17 and -18. Please note 338-18 (b) which states
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.and then goes on to list which applicants qualify. So it is quite clear that 338.18 states no information except index data should be released to an unqualified applicant. Just being an applicant doesn't cut it, sorry.
Once again, we seem to be split on which takes precedence - a statute from 1977, subsequently amended and updated, or a 1955 rules document from the HDOH. Certainly HDOH ought to have updated its rules a long time ago. But I chalk this up to bureaucratic snafu and incompetence. It does not surprise me in the least that the HDOH would follow the later statute which forbids disclosure, rather than the older agency rules which do not.
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.