OKUBO CAUGHT AGAIN: Admits Providing False Information Regarding DoH Maintenance Of Divorce Records.
Okubo caught in another lie about obama
Leo Donofrio and company, ie American citizens who believe obama is an imposter, are seeing Hawaiian officals ignore the law.
This HI quagmire is obviously a key factor in a larger controversy. The DOJ seems committed to defending Obama instead of the Constitution. Is there some point at which the thing to do is request a Special Prosecutor?
[ed. The OIP will get their chance first. They have the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings. I think Okubo got tripped up on her own Seussian hooplah by trying to parse the words "hold" and "maintain". The records of divorce from 2002 onwards are aparrently "held" by the judiciary... but I believe the DoH still maintains them in that they control access to them in some manner. That's the law in Hawaii... you don't have to actually "hold" records to "maintain". If you exercise any authority over them, then the law says you "maintain" them. She tried to parse her answer to KingsKid and she tripped over her own tongue. This is what happens when people lie to the giant...the giant just has too many eyes, ears and noses... Seriously, it's on now. We know for certain that there's a cover up at the DoH... It may just be that they don't want us to have closure on the place of birth... and it doesn't matter. One way or another we will have closure. They are starting to sweat over there. It's just a matter of which guppy comes forward first.]
Many guppys in the Hawaiian government. Just before birth, the eyes of fry may be seen through the translucent skin. Lets hope some "guppy" gives birth to documentation that proves obama is an imposter.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
The jig is up and the imbecilic narcissistic obama displays failure again
.........................................................................................
JIG: A joke or trick. Used chiefly in the phrase The jig is up.
Urban Dictionary: imbicile Unknowingly mentally challenged. You're such an imbicile, you don't know what goes on around you.
The trick is up. It didn't work. The narcissistic obama thought he could, by his presence, persuade the olmypic committee to host the 2016 games in of all places Chicago. The urban dictionary definition fits obama perfectly. He is an "imbicile". An unknowingly challenged narcissist!
narcissism: The term narcissism' refers to the personality trait of self-love, which includes the set of character traits concerned with self-image or ego. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit, egotism or simple selfishness.
THIS DESCRIBES BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA THE IMPOSTER
.........................................................................................
COPENHAGEN — Even the First Couple couldn't keep the USA from finishing dead last in the race for the 2016 Summer Olympics.
IOC voters sent Chicago away with just 18 of 94 first-round votes before handing Rio the opportunity to host the first South American Olympics.
Critics questioned the value and motive of his attendance with so many pressing domestic and other international issues on his plate.
.........................................................................................
This is how obama operates. In the face of sure defeat he travels to denmark to make a speech knowing chicago really didn't have a chance. He does not think logically nor act like a mature adult. He is really STUCK ON STUPID! He wants what he wants even in the face of sure defeat no matter what. Obama truly is a narcissistic freak!
US relinquishes control of the internet obama grabs more power through the un to control the internet
US relinquishes control of the internet
• Icann ends agreement with the US government
• Move will give other countries a prominent internet role
obama grabs more power through the un to control the internet
Other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens – opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet.
(This will mean the united nations will control the internet. I'm sure free speech will be controlled by the UN. Just what the IMPOSTER obama ordered.)
........................................................................................
After complaints about American dominance of the internet and growing disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system.
Icann – the official body that ultimately controls the development of the internet thanks to its oversight of web addresses such as .com, .net and .org – said today that it was ending its agreement with the US government.
The deal, part of a contract negotiated with the US department of commerce, effectively pushes California-based Icann towards a new status as an international body with greater representation from companies and governments around the globe.
Icann had previously been operating under the auspices of the American government, which had control of the net thanks to its initial role in developing the underlying technologies used for connecting computers together.
But the fresh focus will give other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens – opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet.
Icann chief Rod Beckstrom, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur and Washington insider who took over running the organisation in July, said there had been legitimate concerns that some countries were developing alternative internets as a way of routing around American control.
"It's rumoured that there are multiple experiments going on with countries forking the internet, various countries have discussed this," he said. "This is a very significant shift because it takes the wind out of our opponents."
He added that the changes would prove powerful when combined with upcoming plans to allow web users to use addresses with names in Chinese, Arabic or other alphabets other than Latin. Many countries have lobbied for the shift in recent years, as the expansion of the web reaches out deeper into society and business.
While the issue reached critical mass in emerging economies such as China, it is not the only country that has lobbied for a change. Earlier this year European officials said that they did not think it was proper for America to retain so much control over the global computer network.
Viviane Reding, the EU's commissioner for information society and media, said she was pleased that Washington chose to make the shift.
"I welcome the US administration's decision to adapt Icann's key role in internet governance to the reality of the 21st century," she said. "If effectively and transparently implemented, this reform can find broad acceptance among civil society, businesses and governments alike."
Meanwhile Nominet - the British organisation that handles the day-to-day running of .uk domain names - said that Icann had started a trend for companies with internet influence to appear more open and accountable.
"Putting public interest first will also be a focus for the UK internet community over the coming months as there is growing support for Nominet to develop more of a public interest role," said Nominet's chief executive, Lesley Cowley.
The new agreement comes into force immediately. It replaces the old version which had been in place since 1998 and was scheduled to expire today.
Beckstrom suggested that bringing more countries to the table was the best way of ensuring the long term future of the internet.
"We're more global, period. The chances of the internet holding together just went up, the cohesion just went up," he said. "We expect more active involvement from governments, a higher level of participation from many governments and we're already hearing about more governments joining the team… This was, ironically, a power move from the US."
(Another move by obama to consolidate power using the UN)
• Icann ends agreement with the US government
• Move will give other countries a prominent internet role
obama grabs more power through the un to control the internet
Other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens – opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet.
(This will mean the united nations will control the internet. I'm sure free speech will be controlled by the UN. Just what the IMPOSTER obama ordered.)
........................................................................................
After complaints about American dominance of the internet and growing disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system.
Icann – the official body that ultimately controls the development of the internet thanks to its oversight of web addresses such as .com, .net and .org – said today that it was ending its agreement with the US government.
The deal, part of a contract negotiated with the US department of commerce, effectively pushes California-based Icann towards a new status as an international body with greater representation from companies and governments around the globe.
Icann had previously been operating under the auspices of the American government, which had control of the net thanks to its initial role in developing the underlying technologies used for connecting computers together.
But the fresh focus will give other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens – opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet.
Icann chief Rod Beckstrom, a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur and Washington insider who took over running the organisation in July, said there had been legitimate concerns that some countries were developing alternative internets as a way of routing around American control.
"It's rumoured that there are multiple experiments going on with countries forking the internet, various countries have discussed this," he said. "This is a very significant shift because it takes the wind out of our opponents."
He added that the changes would prove powerful when combined with upcoming plans to allow web users to use addresses with names in Chinese, Arabic or other alphabets other than Latin. Many countries have lobbied for the shift in recent years, as the expansion of the web reaches out deeper into society and business.
While the issue reached critical mass in emerging economies such as China, it is not the only country that has lobbied for a change. Earlier this year European officials said that they did not think it was proper for America to retain so much control over the global computer network.
Viviane Reding, the EU's commissioner for information society and media, said she was pleased that Washington chose to make the shift.
"I welcome the US administration's decision to adapt Icann's key role in internet governance to the reality of the 21st century," she said. "If effectively and transparently implemented, this reform can find broad acceptance among civil society, businesses and governments alike."
Meanwhile Nominet - the British organisation that handles the day-to-day running of .uk domain names - said that Icann had started a trend for companies with internet influence to appear more open and accountable.
"Putting public interest first will also be a focus for the UK internet community over the coming months as there is growing support for Nominet to develop more of a public interest role," said Nominet's chief executive, Lesley Cowley.
The new agreement comes into force immediately. It replaces the old version which had been in place since 1998 and was scheduled to expire today.
Beckstrom suggested that bringing more countries to the table was the best way of ensuring the long term future of the internet.
"We're more global, period. The chances of the internet holding together just went up, the cohesion just went up," he said. "We expect more active involvement from governments, a higher level of participation from many governments and we're already hearing about more governments joining the team… This was, ironically, a power move from the US."
(Another move by obama to consolidate power using the UN)
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Game Changer Update About Officials In Hawaii Hiding Obama records
THE MASK IS COMMING OFF
By taking official agency notice of Obama’s vital records and issuing an official opinion as to his Presidential eligibility, DoH Director Fukino’s actions fall under “the law of the agency” pursuant to 92F-12(a)(2). And by refusing to inform the public concerning how she came to define the term “natural-born American citizen”, she is guilty of making “secret law”.
TerriK INVESTIGATION, Part 3: Hawaii AG Mark Bennett Approved Fukino’s Natural-Born Citizen Statement; All Records Should Be Made Public According To Law. Leo Donofrio
Hawaii Makes Secret Law Hiding Obama's Identity
.......................................................................................
......................................................................................
From Leo's Great Game Changer Blog!
Hawaii Department of Health Director Chiyome Fukino’s press release of July 27, 2009 was a public statement. The UIPA (Hawaii open records law) at 92F-12(a)(15) states:
§92F-12 Disclosure required. (a) Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:
(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;
Fukino’s July 27th press release stated:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
There were two very important pieces of information made available to the public in the above statement:
- “…Obama was born in Hawaii…”
- “…Obama…is a natural-born American citizen…”
It cannot be disputed that this information was made available to the public. Therefore, under 92F-12(a)(15), all “Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making” the July 27th statement available to the public must be disclosed.
TerriK locked onto 92F-12(a)(15) and applied it to the July 27th press release by requesting all relevant records thereto. It was a very intelligent and savvy analysis, especially for a lay person. I tend to believe the application of this provision was overlooked by Hawaii officials and this will be the game changer leading to full disclosure.
Everything specifically listed in section 92F-12 is required by law to be made public. There is no discretion involved. Furthermore, no other provision of the UIPA may work as an exception to the mandatory disclosure mandated by 92F-12. Therefore, none of the exceptions listed in 92F-13 to the UIPA’s general rule of disclosure are applicable.
The only exceptions to mandatory disclosure of records listed in 92F-12(a)(15) are confidentiality laws listed in other chapters of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. This would specifically include Haw. Rev.Stat. 338-18 which makes vital records maintained by the DoH confidential.
As to Fukino’s July 27th press release, 92F-12(a)(15) and 338-18 may be in conflict as to disclosure of Obama’s vital records. The resolution of this potential conflict will be the subject matter of Part 4 of this report where we will comprehensively analyze whether vital records viewed by Fukino in making her July 27th statement must be disclosed.
I will tell you in advance that when such a conflict exists, the law requires that authorities give effect to both provisions where possible as “repeal by implication is disfavored”. OIP OP. Ltr. No. 00-02 citing Mahiai c. Suwa 69 Haw. 349, 356-57 (1987). My conclusion stated in advance of Part 4 is that those vital records must be disclosed.
That being said, this section of the report will be limited to issue of which records must be disclosed by the DoH, the Hawaii Attorney General, and any other official – state or federal – pertaining to the definition of the term “natural-born American citizen” as used by Fukino in her July 27th, 2009 press release.
NEW UIPA REQUESTS
Unfortunately, TerriK’s requests for records on this issue were very broad. This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have yielded some disclosure. But the DoH seized on the broadness and issued a very confusing response which did not exactly conform to the OIP administrative rules.
Therefore, I have begun the process of making very specific UIPA requests on my own behalf for the records discussed. Other researchers I am in touch with are doing the same. Below is comprehensive legal analysis which strongly indicates full disclosure must be provided.
HAWAII ATTORNEY GENERAL MARK BENNETT APPROVED FUKINO’S JULY 27th PRESS RELEASE.
Justin Riggs sent the following email to DoH Communications Director Janice Okubo on July 29, 2009:
From: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM
To: …janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov, [redacted other recipient]
…Ms. Okubo,
I am currently a masters degree candidate at …
The reason that I am contacting your organizations is that you are, as far as I can tell from my research, the only two groups that have openly stated that President Obama is a natural born citizen (one of the Article II, Section I qualifications for being President). I would like to document how you came to that conclusion: i.e. what the criteria is for your organization, what evidence the candidate provides, etc.
I thank you for your time, and look forward to receiving a response in the near future.
Sincerely,
Justin W. Riggs
Janice Okubo responded later that day:
From: Okubo, Janice S..
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
To: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]…
Aloha Justin,
The statement was reviewed and approved by our Attorney General Mark Bennett. I am unable to provide further comment.
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health…
So, we know that Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennet “reviewed and approved” Fukino’s July 27th press release. Bennet may have prepared the entire press release or perhaps just the “natural-born” part. We don’t know. Okubo states that she is unable to provide further comment, so the rest is a mystery at this point. But we certainly have another public statement here which makes information available to the public.
The public is therefore entitled to all records maintained by Hawaii officials which pertain to this July 29th statement by Okubo. For example, any emails between Okubo and AG Bennett, between Okubo and Fukino, between Bennett and Fukino, Governor Lingle, etc. which guided Okubo’s statement to Justin Riggs must be disclosed along with memos, letters, transcripts, video and telephonic conference recordings and any other records maintained thereto.
The same goes for any records maintained documenting dialogue between Hawaii officials and federal officials as to this issue.
But more important is that all of the above records pertaining to Fukino’s July 27th press release must also be disclosed.
WHAT DEFINITION OF “NATURAL-BORN” CITIZEN DID FUKINO RELY UPON?
The statement, “…Obama…is a natural-born American citizen…”, contains both a factual determination as well as a legal definition. In order to decipher the factual determination made public by that conclusion, we must first know the legal definition of “natural-born America citizen” that Fukino determined Obama conformed to.
Without that legal definition, we can’t analyze the factual determination.
For example, if she used a definition which alleges anyone born on US soil is therefore a natural-born citizen, then the factual determination for this statement might only be concerned with records she viewed which led her to believe Obama was born in the US.
If, on the other hand, she used a definition which required that Obama was born in the US to parents who were citizens, then the factual determination involved with the “natural-born” part of her statement would have taken into account records she viewed which stated who his parents were.
Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett reviewed and approved the July 27th press release so we should assume that an Attorney General opinion letter exists. I personally issued a UIPA request for this letter to DoH Director Fukino on Sept. 28, 2009.
While the following analysis centers on disclosure of Attorney General opinions letters, it equally applies to all other government records kept by any state official or body covered by the UIPA – ie, emails, memos, photographs, minutes, etc. – which pertain to the July 27th press release.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION LETTERS CANNOT BE A SWORD AND A SHIELD.
Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-3 imposes an affirmative duty upon the Attorney General to document and make public all opinions he gives upon a question of law submitted by the head of an agency:
§28-3 Gives opinions. The attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the governor, the legislature, or its members, or the head of any department. The attorney general shall file a copy of each opinion with the lieutenant governor, the public archives, the supreme court library, and the legislative reference bureau within three days of the date it is issued. Opinions on file with the lieutenant governor, the public archives, and the supreme court library shall be available for public inspection.
The word “shall” signifies an affirmative duty to document the opinion as well as make it public. This means that even if no Attorney General opinion letter currently exists, since a question of law was submitted to AG Bennet by the head of a state agency – DoH Director Fukino – the opinion received by her must be put in letter form and made available to the public.
If necessary, this may be accomplished via a writ of mandamus. However, I do believe such an opinion letter already exists along with accompanying emails and other records kept thereto. It would be highly suspicious for the DoH Director and the Attorney General to claim that no records whatsoever exist concerning Bennet’s review and approval of the July 27th press release.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LETTER MUST BE DISCLOSED.
In a case before the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (State of Hawaii) – Akaku v. Bennett – involving current Attorney General Mark Bennett, the head of a state agency sought to keep an opinion letter prepared by AG Bennett from being disclosed:
Pursuant to HRS § 28-3, the Attorney General’s duty to disclose legal opinions in response to questions of law posed by any head of department is not discretionary. If the head of any department poses a question of law, the Attorney General’s response must be filed in accordance with HRS § 28-3 absent other considerations set out in HRS §§ 92F-13 and 14. [FN] 3.
Footnote 3 from that opinion states:
§ 28-3 provides that the “attorney general shall file a copy of each opinion.., within three days of the date it is issued” (emphasis added). Generally, the legislature uses the word “shall” to Indicate its intention to make the provision mandatory and not discretionary. State v. Shannon, 118 Haw. 15, 25 (2008).
NO ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE APPLIES.
The court went on to discuss that once the existence of the opinion letter and the conclusion of the letter are made public, no attorney client privilege applies:
Under the Hawaii Rules of Evidence (”HRE”), Rule 511, “[a] person upon whom these rules confer a privilege against disclosure waives the privilege if, while holder of the privilege, the person or the person’s predecessor voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the privileged matter. “… Commentary to HRE, Rule 511 further provides that “[a]ny intentional disclosure by the holder of the privilege defeats [the purpose of HRE 503] and eliminates the necessity for the privilege in that instance…
[I]t has been widely held that voluntary disclosure of the content of a privileged attorney communication constitutes waiver of the privilege as to all other such communications on the same subject.
This next part is very important since it discusses that a press release was the basis for a waiver of the attorney client privilege:
A sophisticated, well-counseled party who intentionally discloses an important part of an otherwise privileged communication acts in a manner that is thoroughly inconsistent with preserving the confidentiality of that communication. See Electro Scientific Indus. v. Gen. Scanning, Inc. , 175 F.R.D. 539, 543 (N.D. Cal, 1997) wherein it was held that where a party issues a “news release” disclosing that counsel advised him that the opposing party’s patents were invalid, waiver was effectuated because the party voluntarily disclosed an important and substantive part of what would have been a confidential attorney-client communication.
DoH Director Fukino is an M.D., and she certainly must be considered a “sophisticated, well-counseled party”. She disclosed an important part of the communication between herself and AG Bennet – the conclusion. And by virtue of an eloquent metaphor, the court provides illumination upon the policy which demands disclosure once such a conclusion is made public:
Defendant Reifurth disclosed to the public both the purpose for which he contacted the Attorney General– he wanted a legal opinion…and [he] also disclosed the essence of the legal opinion provided by the Attorney General… The disclosure of the legal opinion of the Attorney General amounted to a disclosure of a significant or important part of the attorney-client communication…
Defendant Reifurth has put two important statutory provisions in competition by using the attorney-client privilege as both a sword and a shield. (Emphasis added.)
Therefore, Fukino can’t use the Attorney General’s opinion as a sword to justify an official determination by her office that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen” while at the same time using the attorney client privilege as a shield to prevent public disclosure of AG Bennet’s opinion which is required by HRS 28-3.
As long as Attorney General Bennett’s opinion was recorded in a letter (or email, memo, note etc.), that record must be disclosed under 92F-12(15) as well as 92F-12(b)(2). The court in Akaku v. Bennett made reference to 92F-12(b)(2) in its holding:
The Uniform Information Practices Act (”UIPA”), directs agencies to disclose “[g]overnment records which, pursuant to federal law or a statute of this State, are expressly authorized to be disclosed to the person requesting access…” HRS § 92F-12(b)(2).
The holding in Akaku v. Bennett also contained the following findings of law:
In this instance, if the Attorney General could avoid publication of his response to a question of law by denominating the opinion as an “advise and counsel” letter, the mandatory disclosure provisions of HRS § 28-3 would be rendered meaningless…
Defendant Reifurth and the DCCA disclosed a significant part of the Attorney General Opinion thereby waiving the attorney-client privilege on communications on the same subject matter.
Since Attorney General opinion letters are expressly authorized to be made public by Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-3, it follows that 92F-12(b)(2) demands disclosure by law.
If Attorney General Bennett is given a question of law by DoH Director Fukino, his opinion in response thereto must be documented and made available to the public. If he has failed to make a record of this opinion, he will be compelled to do so and any resulting recording must be made available to the public.
NO SECRET LAW
We should also assume that DoH Director Fukino didn’t rely exclusively upon Attorney General Bennett’s opinion. She may have done her own research and she may have been influenced by other sources including officers of the federal government. 92F-12(a)(15) demands that all information she collected and maintained for purposes of making the July 27th press release be disclosed to the public. But there is another provision of 92F-12 which provides illumination on this issue, 92F-12(a)(2):
§92F-12 Disclosure required. (a) Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:
(2) Final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders made in the adjudication of cases, except to the extent protected by section 92F-13(1);
This is also known as the “law of the agency” which is specifically discussed in various OIP opinion letters and case law as having the purpose of preventing the issuance of “secret law”.
The most instructive analysis of 92F-12(a)(2) is provided by OIP Opinion Letter 90-40 which provides multiple statutory interpretations which are applicable here as well as to Part 4 of this report. I will quote extensively from this opinion letter:
The UIPA, the State’s new open records law, generally provides that “[a]ll government records are open to inspection and copying unless access is restricted or closed by law.” Haw. Rev. Stat. 92F-11(a) (Supp. 1989). In addition to this general rule of agency disclosure, in section 92F-12, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the Legislature enumerated a list of records, or categories of records, which must be made available for inspection as a matter of law. [FN 3.]
Footnote 3 includes an important provision we’ve seen before in Part 1 of this report:
3 As to the records, or categories or records set forth at section 92F-12, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the legislative history of the UIPA indicates that the Act’s exceptions to public access, “such as for personal privacy and for frustration of legitimate government function are inapplicable.” See S.Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 235, 14th Leg., 1988 Reg. Sess., Haw. S.J.689, 690 (1988); H.R. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 112-88, 14th Leg., 1988 Reg. Sess., Haw. H.J. 817, 818 (1988). (Emphasis added.)
OIP Opinion Letter 90-40 then goes on to explain that the purpose of 92F-12(a)(2) – aka “the law of the agency” – is to prevent “secret law” from being issued:
Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 92F-12(a), Hawaii Revised Statutes, were adopted in their entirety from section 2-101 of the Uniform Information Practices Code (”Model Code”) drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. The UIPA’s legislative history directs those construing its provisions to consult the Model Code’s commentary, where appropriate, to guide the interpretation of similar UIPA provisions. See H.R. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 2580, 14th Leg., 1988 Reg. Sess., Haw. H.J. 969, 972 (1988). The commentary to section 2-101 of the Model Code states:
Under this section, the “law of the agency” must be made available to the public. In other words, an agency may not maintain “secret law” relating to its own decisions and policies. This section is similar in general requirement to Sections (a)(1), (2) and (3) of the federal Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1), (2) and (3). . . . The affirmative disclosure responsibility extends to agency policies, rules and adjudicative determinations and procedures. (Emphasis added.)
OIP Opinion Letter 90-40 then goes on to discuss what specific actions taken by an agency fall under the no secret law of the agency provision of 92F-12(a)(2):
Additional guidance in determining the meaning of the term “order” for purposes of the UIPA, may be gleaned from the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws’ State Administrative Procedure Act of 1981 (”Model Act”). Section 1-102(5) of the Model Act defines the term “order” as:
[A]n agency action of particular applicability that determines the legal rights, duties, privileges, immunities, or other legal interests of one or more specific persons.
Model Act 1-102(5) (1981). (Emphasis added.)
Please note that an “order” is defined above as “an agency action that determines “the …legal interests of one or more specific persons.”
Applying that definition to Fukino’s July 27th statement, it is clear the press release was an agency action - issued on DoH letterhead directly from her office and bearing her title of DoH Director- which determined Obama’s “legal interest” concerning his (publicly disputed) eligibility to be President. The press release did this by stating that Fukino’s review of Obama’s “vital records” determined that he was a “natural-born American citizen”.
By taking official agency notice of Obama’s vital records and issuing an official opinion as to his Presidential eligibility, Fukino’s actions fall under “the law of the agency” pursuant to 92F-12(a)(2). And by refusing to inform the public concerning how she came to define the term “natural-born American citizen”, she is guilty of making “secret law”.
OIP Opinion Letter 90-40 provides further guidance on this issue:
In our opinion, the definition of the term “order” set forth in the Model Act provides a more practical and workable definition of this term. This definition clearly describes the action of an agency when acting in a quasi-judicial or adjudicatory capacity, by determining the legal rights, duties, privileges or other legal interests of specific persons. In our opinion, an agency may act in such a quasi-judicial, or adjudicatory capacity, in contexts other than”contested case” hearings under chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes…
[W]e agree with the decision of the court in Sigler, that like section (a)(2) of the FOIA, by its terms, nothing would support a conclusion that section 92F-12(b)(2), Hawaii Revised Statutes, only applies to “adjudications pursuant to a formal hearing.” Sigler, 390 F. Supp. at 792.
Accordingly, DoH Director Fukino’s July 27th press release is covered by 92F-12(b)(2). The only remaining issue is whether the exception listed therein as to 92F-13(1) applies:
§92F-13 Government records; exceptions to general rule. This part shall not require disclosure of:
(1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
Generally, no exceptions listed in other provisions of the UIPA (Chapter 92F of the Haw. Rev. Stat.) apply to 92F-12. But as to subsection 92F-12(b)(2), the above exception from 92F-13(1) is explicitly included. However, please take note that the 92F-13(1) exception does not apply to our analysis of required disclosure under 92F-12(a)(15).
Regardless, as I have limited discussion in this section of the TerriK Investigation report to disclosure issues attached to records pertaining only to the definition of “natural-born American citizen” incorporated by DoH Director Fukino (and approved by Attorney General Mark Bennett) in her July 27th press release, the privacy exception of 92F-13(1) does not apply.
There can be no privacy interest as to the definition of the term “natural-born American citizen”.
The very notion is absurd.
Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
October 1, 2009
........................................................................................
ImagePhreak Says:
October 1, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Leo
Great work, checkmate, release the long form or they surely risk a suit charging AG and Fukino are breaking HI law. Man…
........................................................................................
Texo Says:
October 1, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Leo, you have the spotlight. Shine, the light of truth on this issue!
Anything we can do to help?
http://www.dixhistory.com/
[ed. post it far and wide. if you guys work as hard reposting all of this as I have in preparing it, the chances of it having a proper impact grow exponentially.]
........................................................................................
HMTKSteve Says:
October 1, 2009 at 1:12 pm
When can we expect the documents/records/opinions to be released?
[ed. all the uipa requests must be responded to by 10 business days, and if no response then we can ask for OIP opinion letters and/or appeals... not sure how long those would take. We don't have to wait for them though, we can go straight to the judiciary for an expedited calendar. Hopefully, we are going to see a release of records before that. Anything going to trial under the UIPA shouldn't take more than a few months... I'm just guessing, but 3 to 4 months at the most seems plausible. It helps alot if those of you reading this will apply PR pressure by reposting and keeping this story front and center. it's a team effort.]
.......................................................................................
A team effort. Team Donofrio. TO INFINITY AND BEYOND!
Lets expose the imposter obama and the diapers he is wearing.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Congress’s Secret Plan to Pass Obamacare A Virtual Bill Of Secret Law
This is the ultimate power of the government to determine if you get well. Its design is to control you through your desire to keep yourself and family healthy. Obama knows you will conform to the obama dictatorship obamacare in order to take care of yourself and loved ones. Because the government will have complete control of your records, and your life will be in obama's hands many people will do whatever the government tells them to do. This is the exact same national healthcare program like hitler used to take control of germany! If this becomes law it all over for Americans as a free people. I think obama is doing this because Leo Donofrio is about to BUST THE OBAMA MYTH!
The Senate plans to attach Obamacare to a House-passed non-healthcare bill. Ironically, nobody knows what that legislation looks like, because it has not yet been written. Its like a "VIRTUAL BILL that doesn't exist." Yet many members plan to rubber-stamp Obamacare without reading or understanding the bill. NOBODY KNOWS WHATS IN THE LEGISLATION. MAY GOD HELP US. ANYTHING COULD BE IN THIS FAKE BILL JUST LIKE ALL THE MASS GOVERNMENT CONTROL THAT WAS IN THE "STIMULUS BILL"
Congress’s Secret Plan to Pass Obamacare by Brian Darling
09/29/2009
The CRAZY Liberal Left Wing Democrate Radicals will try to force obamacare through the senate.
President Obama and liberals in Congress seem intent on passing comprehensive health care reform, even though polls suggest it is unpopular with the American people. And despite the potential political risks to moderate Democrats, the President and left-wing leadership in Congress are determined to pass the measure using a rare parliamentary procedure.
The Senate plans to attach Obamacare to a House-passed non-healthcare bill. Ironically, nobody knows what that legislation looks like, because it has not yet been written. Yet many members plan to rubber-stamp Obamacare without reading or understanding the bill.
The Senate Finance Committee worked furiously last week to mark up a “conceptual framework” of health care reform. The committee actually rejected an amendment by Sen. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.) to mandate that the bill text and a final cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) be publicly available at least 72 hours before the Finance Committee votes on final passage.
The following four-step scenario describes one way liberals plan to work the rules in their favor to get Obamacare through the Senate:
Step 1: The Senate Finance Committee must first approve the marked-up version of Sen. Max Baucus’ (D.-Mont.) conceptual framework. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) can say that two Senate Committees have passed a health care bill, which will allow him to take extraordinary steps to get the bill on the Senate floor.
During the mark-up last week, members had difficulty offering amendments and trying to make constructive changed because they lacked actual legislative text and Baucus made unilateral last minute changes. For example, the AP reported that “under pressure from fellow Democrats, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working-class families.”
Step 2: Sen. Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which passed on a party-line vote in July.
Usually, a bill is voted out of committee, and then the Senate takes up the final product of the committee so that all 100 senators can have a hand in the process. With some help from the Obama administration, Reid will decide what aspects of the HELP and Finance Committee bills to keep.
Step 3: Now, Obamacare will be ready to hitch a ride on an unrelated bill from the House. Sen. Reid will move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. This bill was passed by the House in the wake of the AIG bonus controversy and is currently sitting on the Senate Legislative Calendar.
The move to proceed needs 60 votes to start debate. After the motion is approved, Sen. Reid will offer Obamacare as a complete substitute to the unrelated House-passed bill. This means that the entire healthcare reform effort will be included as an amendment to a TARP bill that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months.
Step 4: For this strategy to work, the proponents would need to hold together the liberal caucus of 58 Democrats (including Paul Kirk who was named last Thursday to replace Sen. Kennedy), and the two Independent senators (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont). These members will have to all hold hands and vote against any filibuster. Once the Senate takes up the bill, only a simple majority of members will be needed for passage. It’s possible one of the endangered moderate Democrats, such as Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), could vote to stop a filibuster then vote against Obamacare so as not to offend angry constituents.
Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill without changes and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure. If this plan does not work, the Senate and House leadership may go back to considering using reconciliation to pass the legislation.
Adopting this secret plan will not strike most Americans as a transparent, bipartisan, effective way to change how millions of Americans get their health care.
Brian Darling is director of U.S. Senate Relations at The Heritage Foundation.
..........................................................................................
Obama through reed acting as his storm trooper will try to force obamacare and the destruction of America as we know it through the senate in the next several days. America is under attack by the enemy within. Obamacare is not about health care it is about controlling your life, taking your freedom and destroying America as we know it. Reed and Obama are TRAITORS to America. Its time to realize our government is under the control of the enemies within. America the revolution is about to begin again! Its time for an American Patriot REVOLT! Obama, Harry Reed and other traitors will stop at nothing to subvert our freedom.
Obama is also a 32nd degree Prince Hall Freemason loyal to the Craft and devoted to his principles
........................................................................................
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
Yep him to. ron paul and the illuminati [or masonic] hand shake.
.......................................................................................
Obama outlines his ambitious geopolitical plans in a recent essay for Foreign Affairs magazine. 2/13/08 Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on ForeignRelations, which describes itself as a non-partisan group of which he is a member. Established in the 1920's and headquartered in New York, its membership includes prominent politicians and business elite, including heads of academia and media. The organization seeks to centralize both political power and market power to craft legislation outside the checks and balances of democracy.
The CFR is rarely mentioned by the mainstream media... Obama is also a 32nd degree Prince Hall Freemason loyal to the Craft and devoted to his principles.
Obama is illuminati aristocracy. His appearence from 'nowhere', and subsequent rocket to the front of the political line are no coincidence. Believe it or not, Barack Obama is related to both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Obama is related to guess who
[Lady Queenborough, Occult Theocracy, p. 220-221, quoting a letter from Albert Pike to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World on July 14, 1889]
FreemasonryExplained
"1776, Foundation of the Illuminati of Bavaria, by Adam Weishaupt, on May 1." This date (May 1, 1776), is represented on every dollar bill! If you look at the back of a one dollar bill you will find on the left-hand side, "MDCCLXXVI" which is 1776, and the words "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM" which means "New World Order!"
The Bible specifies that Jesus is the chief Cornerstone, but He was rejected. This is quite evident by looking at the picture, the cornerstone has been removed or rejected and has been replaced by the all-seeing eye, a symbol of Satan!
"New World Order: The Rise of the Region-State"
The "old world order" is one based on independent nation-states.
The "new world order" involves the elimination of the sovereignty and independence of nation-states and some form of world government.
This brings us to one of the main goals of the New Age Movement, which is a One World Government with a One World Religion. But for this goal to be realized, a One World Leader is needed. Are Masons, like New Agers, also looking for a One World Leader? Yes, they certainly are!
Obama wants to be the one world leader. He speaks of one world government. He destains the United States everywhere he goes. Obama makes excuses for the US when none are needed or required. WHo do you think obama is?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
knee jerk reaction to a line of questioning
Was this a knee jerk reaction to a line of questioning which – if explored in light of the UIPA – had the potential to force the release of President Obama’s vital records?
............................................................................................
The Question
............................................................................................
At 9:00 PM EDT (3:00 PM in Hawaii), TerriK sent the following email to Okubo:
From [TerriK - real name redacted]
Date: July 27, 2009 9:00:29 PM EDT
To: “Okubo, Janice S.”
Subject: Re: Your help is appreciated
Ms. Okubo,
Aloha! Thank you so much for replying quickly. And, thank you for the ‘infamous’ press release–it is a document I refer to every so often and having my very own is much appreciated. I’ll consider this document my brush with fame AND infamy! Frankly, I wonder what you must think of the ‘Birther’ inquiries and would like to state upfront, that I completely respect Hawaii’s Privacy laws. I ask that you answer the following, if privacy laws allow:
“Is the Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, able to state they have verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has President Barack Obama’s AMENDED original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
I fear my carefully chosen wording appears like an effort to ‘pull a fast one’–however, I modeled it on the following statement you were able to make publicly on your press release last year :
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. “
I hope this is reasonable to ask. If not, can you point me to the applicable statute?
Many thanks for your attention to this matter.
........................................................................................
The Answer
........................................................................................
From: “Okubo, Janice S.”
Date: July 27, 2009 11:45:54 PM EDT
To: [TerriK - real name redacted]
Subject: RE: Your help is appreciated.
Attached is the statement issued today by the Hawaii State Director of Health. The director has never used the term “AMMENDED” (sic) in any of her issued statements regarding this issue. Attached to this email was the actual press release issued by DoH Director Fukino on July 27th.
TerriK was completely shocked at the incredible dual statements laid before her on official DoH letterhead:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
.........................................................................................
Looking back retrospectively, TerriK’s questions submitted to Okubo early in the morning on July 27th appear to have been the catalyst for the notorious press release later that evening.
Was this a knee jerk reaction to a line of questioning which – if explored in light of the UIPA – had the potential to force the release of President Obama’s vital records?
However, I do feel very confident that the laws in Hawaii – UIPA, Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(d), OIP opinion letters and case law – will force the release of vital records and all other information consulted for the public statements made by DoH Director Fukino.
Comprehensive legal analysis of those laws will be posted in Part 3 of the TerriK Investigation Report.
by Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
..........................................................................................
Oh ya, I agree Leo this was a knee jerk reaction because TerriK was really on to something. An offer that Okubo, Janice S could not refuse, legally. Okubo took the bait. The rats got real excited and crapped. When the rats crapped out a response stating the natural born American citizen stuff they were in panic mode. I think "they" still are. This avenue of revealing the facts about the imposter obama is better than anything else that has been tried. I know the federal courts will not order obama to release information about who he is. Leo is right Okubo sooner or later will be forced to issue some information that will crack the obama nutshell. I hope it is real soon before the imposter obama destroys America.
Obama must manipulate officals in Hawaii to keep his identity hidden. Okubo has let the "cat" out of the bag when she said obama is a natural-born American citizen. The Hawaiian UIPA will expose the imposter obama. They know the UIPA is not going away. the UIPA is a game changer. Leo Donofrio
.........................................................................................
A question for Leo, and answer from Leo.
.........................................................................................
Question:
September 29, 2009 at 6:14 pm
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
Dr Fukino is saying the following in this statement:
She has seen the hospital name where obama was born in Hawaii?
She has seen the doctor’s name?
She has seen the parents names?
She verifies obama is a natural born citizen on what basis?
What is Dr fukino’s definition of a “natural-born American citizen”
It can’t be on the basis of two parents that were born in America.
It must be on the basis of where obama was born only.
Natural Born Citizen – this is an individual born of two American parents, whether the parents were native born or were foreign born and then naturalized.
There were seven presidents born that had at least one foreign parent like Obama. But in every case, the foreign parent was naturalized, with the exception of Chester Arthur. His father was Irish and became a Canadian citizen, never a naturalized US citizen.
Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen due to to his Kenyan father.
[ed. technically, his father was a native of Kenya but a British citizen as was Obama at birth and this is what makes him ineligible in my opinion.]
Correct me Leo if this is not right.
I think I got an snwer for this question. What is Dr fukino’s definition of a “natural-born American citizen”. It must be on the basis of where obama was born only.
Natural Born Citizen – this is an individual born of two American parents, whether the parents were native born or were foreign born and then naturalized.
I do believe this is the definition of a "natural born citizen". One of his "parents" was a not native born nor a naturalized citizen. He was a British citizen at obama's "birth".
AS LEO SAYS THIS MEANS OBAMA WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AT BIRTH. AT the minimum on the face of scant evidence he was just a "citizen" at birth, NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AT BIRTH!.
........................................................................................
Some additional possibilities. Leo Donofrio Quotes.
........................................................................................
I have previously read – in the Lame Cherry Blog – an argument that Obama’s mother was a British subject by virtue of simply marrying Obama Sr. That article does not discuss the act of registering as a UKC citizen under Section 6(2) of the BNA 1948. The Lame Cherry article only discusses the possibility of Stanley Ann Obama being a British subject.
The author of that blog concludes that Stanley Ann Obama was both a British subject and a citizen of the US.
It is possible due to some provision of British law that Stanley Ann Obama was considered a British subject after marrying Barack Obama, Sr.
It’s important to note whether Stanley Ann Obama, by availing herself of the registered citizen provisions of the BNA 1948, there is so much we don't know about Obama's history - so much we are not allowed to know. The 60's were a time of great change. Stanley Ann was a very 'unique' woman of the time. It's very possible she was not happy being a US citizen. Perhaps she meant to give up her US citizenship. (When she 'married obama sr')
There is so much we don't know about Obama's history - so much we are not allowed to know. The 60's were a time of great change. Stanley Ann was a very unique woman of the time. It's very possible she was not happy being a US citizen. Perhaps she gave meant to give up her US citizenship.
.........................................................................................
If obama's "mother" Stanley Ann Obama, by availing herself of the registered citizen provisions of the BNA 1948, became a UKC citizen and concurrently lost US citizenship THIS MEANS OBAMA WAS BORN TO TWO FOREIGN PARENTS!
.........................................................................................
An additional question to ponder about obama's "mother".
.........................................................................................
Michelle Obama Contradicts Barack’s Biography
TexasDarlin Blog ^
Posted on 07/11/2008 9:20:02 AM PDT by WilliamReading
Michelle Obama contradicted the embedded story-line of her husband’s biography Thursday, as reported by The Huffington Post:
His own mother, she said at the beginning of her remarks, was “very young and very single when she had him.”
Oops, Michelle forgot the script.
But she confirmed my suspicions that Barack’s parents were NOT married when he was born, and were not even together.
And that makes Stanley Ann Dunham’s Aug. 61 trip to Mercer Island even more suspicious. Ann was not on her way to visit Barack Sr. at Harvard, as her friend told me. First of all, Barack Sr. didn’t go to Harvard until 1963. Secondly, they weren’t together then, as Michelle confirmed Thursday.
I can’t imagine that 18-year-old Ann would travel from Honolulu to Boston with a 3-week-old baby, ALONE, to visit the ex-boyfriend (baby Barack’s father). I can’t imagine her parents would let her.
Why was Stanley Ann Dunham on Mercer Island in Aug. 1961?
So according to obama's own wife obama's mother was single at the time of his birth. Another question to be answered. If this is true any "birth certificate" with obama's name on it is a FRADULENT DOCUMENT! Now this could be the REAL reason obama nor Hawaii will release any information about his "birth certificate". Story Reports
What we do know without a doubt obama was a dual citizen at birth. A british citizen and a US citizen according to his own words. This means out of his own mouth he has admitted he was not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN at birth. Obama has admitted he is a FRAUD and IMPOSTER. What more evidence does anyone need? Story Reports
What would go some way to putting this important question to rest would be if the Vital Statistics Dept. of Hawaii would release the 'vault' copy of "Obama's" birth registration. It is proof of birth circumstances as exists, legally. Keep in mind it might indicate obama was born to dunham and obama sr but it is accurate only if the documents provided, if any, were accurate to obtain it. It is a real possiblilty obama's "parents" were not married when he was born. It is a real possiblity obama's "mother" was a British citizen at his birth. It is a real possibility obama's "mother" was not a US citizen long enough at birth if he was born in Kenya for him to be considered a naturalized dual citizen. It is a real possibility obama was born not in Hawaii but Kenya. It is a real possiblity obama is not a US citizen at all!
(So many possibilities in addition to the documented facts of obama's statements about his "birth". Like I said obama has admitted he is a dual citizen. He has admitted he is a FRAUD and IMPOSTER!)
............................................................................................
The Question
............................................................................................
At 9:00 PM EDT (3:00 PM in Hawaii), TerriK sent the following email to Okubo:
From [TerriK - real name redacted]
Date: July 27, 2009 9:00:29 PM EDT
To: “Okubo, Janice S.”
Subject: Re: Your help is appreciated
Ms. Okubo,
Aloha! Thank you so much for replying quickly. And, thank you for the ‘infamous’ press release–it is a document I refer to every so often and having my very own is much appreciated. I’ll consider this document my brush with fame AND infamy! Frankly, I wonder what you must think of the ‘Birther’ inquiries and would like to state upfront, that I completely respect Hawaii’s Privacy laws. I ask that you answer the following, if privacy laws allow:
“Is the Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, able to state they have verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has President Barack Obama’s AMENDED original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
I fear my carefully chosen wording appears like an effort to ‘pull a fast one’–however, I modeled it on the following statement you were able to make publicly on your press release last year :
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. “
I hope this is reasonable to ask. If not, can you point me to the applicable statute?
Many thanks for your attention to this matter.
........................................................................................
The Answer
........................................................................................
From: “Okubo, Janice S.”
Date: July 27, 2009 11:45:54 PM EDT
To: [TerriK - real name redacted]
Subject: RE: Your help is appreciated.
Attached is the statement issued today by the Hawaii State Director of Health. The director has never used the term “AMMENDED” (sic) in any of her issued statements regarding this issue. Attached to this email was the actual press release issued by DoH Director Fukino on July 27th.
TerriK was completely shocked at the incredible dual statements laid before her on official DoH letterhead:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
.........................................................................................
Looking back retrospectively, TerriK’s questions submitted to Okubo early in the morning on July 27th appear to have been the catalyst for the notorious press release later that evening.
Was this a knee jerk reaction to a line of questioning which – if explored in light of the UIPA – had the potential to force the release of President Obama’s vital records?
However, I do feel very confident that the laws in Hawaii – UIPA, Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(d), OIP opinion letters and case law – will force the release of vital records and all other information consulted for the public statements made by DoH Director Fukino.
Comprehensive legal analysis of those laws will be posted in Part 3 of the TerriK Investigation Report.
by Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
..........................................................................................
Oh ya, I agree Leo this was a knee jerk reaction because TerriK was really on to something. An offer that Okubo, Janice S could not refuse, legally. Okubo took the bait. The rats got real excited and crapped. When the rats crapped out a response stating the natural born American citizen stuff they were in panic mode. I think "they" still are. This avenue of revealing the facts about the imposter obama is better than anything else that has been tried. I know the federal courts will not order obama to release information about who he is. Leo is right Okubo sooner or later will be forced to issue some information that will crack the obama nutshell. I hope it is real soon before the imposter obama destroys America.
Obama must manipulate officals in Hawaii to keep his identity hidden. Okubo has let the "cat" out of the bag when she said obama is a natural-born American citizen. The Hawaiian UIPA will expose the imposter obama. They know the UIPA is not going away. the UIPA is a game changer. Leo Donofrio
.........................................................................................
A question for Leo, and answer from Leo.
.........................................................................................
Question:
September 29, 2009 at 6:14 pm
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
Dr Fukino is saying the following in this statement:
She has seen the hospital name where obama was born in Hawaii?
She has seen the doctor’s name?
She has seen the parents names?
She verifies obama is a natural born citizen on what basis?
What is Dr fukino’s definition of a “natural-born American citizen”
It can’t be on the basis of two parents that were born in America.
It must be on the basis of where obama was born only.
Natural Born Citizen – this is an individual born of two American parents, whether the parents were native born or were foreign born and then naturalized.
There were seven presidents born that had at least one foreign parent like Obama. But in every case, the foreign parent was naturalized, with the exception of Chester Arthur. His father was Irish and became a Canadian citizen, never a naturalized US citizen.
Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen due to to his Kenyan father.
[ed. technically, his father was a native of Kenya but a British citizen as was Obama at birth and this is what makes him ineligible in my opinion.]
Correct me Leo if this is not right.
I think I got an snwer for this question. What is Dr fukino’s definition of a “natural-born American citizen”. It must be on the basis of where obama was born only.
Natural Born Citizen – this is an individual born of two American parents, whether the parents were native born or were foreign born and then naturalized.
I do believe this is the definition of a "natural born citizen". One of his "parents" was a not native born nor a naturalized citizen. He was a British citizen at obama's "birth".
AS LEO SAYS THIS MEANS OBAMA WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AT BIRTH. AT the minimum on the face of scant evidence he was just a "citizen" at birth, NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AT BIRTH!.
........................................................................................
Some additional possibilities. Leo Donofrio Quotes.
........................................................................................
I have previously read – in the Lame Cherry Blog – an argument that Obama’s mother was a British subject by virtue of simply marrying Obama Sr. That article does not discuss the act of registering as a UKC citizen under Section 6(2) of the BNA 1948. The Lame Cherry article only discusses the possibility of Stanley Ann Obama being a British subject.
The author of that blog concludes that Stanley Ann Obama was both a British subject and a citizen of the US.
It is possible due to some provision of British law that Stanley Ann Obama was considered a British subject after marrying Barack Obama, Sr.
It’s important to note whether Stanley Ann Obama, by availing herself of the registered citizen provisions of the BNA 1948, there is so much we don't know about Obama's history - so much we are not allowed to know. The 60's were a time of great change. Stanley Ann was a very 'unique' woman of the time. It's very possible she was not happy being a US citizen. Perhaps she meant to give up her US citizenship. (When she 'married obama sr')
There is so much we don't know about Obama's history - so much we are not allowed to know. The 60's were a time of great change. Stanley Ann was a very unique woman of the time. It's very possible she was not happy being a US citizen. Perhaps she gave meant to give up her US citizenship.
.........................................................................................
If obama's "mother" Stanley Ann Obama, by availing herself of the registered citizen provisions of the BNA 1948, became a UKC citizen and concurrently lost US citizenship THIS MEANS OBAMA WAS BORN TO TWO FOREIGN PARENTS!
.........................................................................................
An additional question to ponder about obama's "mother".
.........................................................................................
Michelle Obama Contradicts Barack’s Biography
TexasDarlin Blog ^
Posted on 07/11/2008 9:20:02 AM PDT by WilliamReading
Michelle Obama contradicted the embedded story-line of her husband’s biography Thursday, as reported by The Huffington Post:
His own mother, she said at the beginning of her remarks, was “very young and very single when she had him.”
Oops, Michelle forgot the script.
But she confirmed my suspicions that Barack’s parents were NOT married when he was born, and were not even together.
And that makes Stanley Ann Dunham’s Aug. 61 trip to Mercer Island even more suspicious. Ann was not on her way to visit Barack Sr. at Harvard, as her friend told me. First of all, Barack Sr. didn’t go to Harvard until 1963. Secondly, they weren’t together then, as Michelle confirmed Thursday.
I can’t imagine that 18-year-old Ann would travel from Honolulu to Boston with a 3-week-old baby, ALONE, to visit the ex-boyfriend (baby Barack’s father). I can’t imagine her parents would let her.
Why was Stanley Ann Dunham on Mercer Island in Aug. 1961?
So according to obama's own wife obama's mother was single at the time of his birth. Another question to be answered. If this is true any "birth certificate" with obama's name on it is a FRADULENT DOCUMENT! Now this could be the REAL reason obama nor Hawaii will release any information about his "birth certificate". Story Reports
What we do know without a doubt obama was a dual citizen at birth. A british citizen and a US citizen according to his own words. This means out of his own mouth he has admitted he was not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN at birth. Obama has admitted he is a FRAUD and IMPOSTER. What more evidence does anyone need? Story Reports
What would go some way to putting this important question to rest would be if the Vital Statistics Dept. of Hawaii would release the 'vault' copy of "Obama's" birth registration. It is proof of birth circumstances as exists, legally. Keep in mind it might indicate obama was born to dunham and obama sr but it is accurate only if the documents provided, if any, were accurate to obtain it. It is a real possiblilty obama's "parents" were not married when he was born. It is a real possiblity obama's "mother" was a British citizen at his birth. It is a real possibility obama's "mother" was not a US citizen long enough at birth if he was born in Kenya for him to be considered a naturalized dual citizen. It is a real possibility obama was born not in Hawaii but Kenya. It is a real possiblity obama is not a US citizen at all!
(So many possibilities in addition to the documented facts of obama's statements about his "birth". Like I said obama has admitted he is a dual citizen. He has admitted he is a FRAUD and IMPOSTER!)
Monday, September 28, 2009
Leo Donofrio Quote: the UIPA is a game changer
YES WE CAN EXPOSE THE IMPOSTER OBAMA
[ed. The news rags are propaganda. nobody goes to newspapers for news. that's a joke. the blogs break news. The rags just issue Goebbels PR. This is a good example of doublespeak... the guy starts out as if he will answer the question then doesnt. I told you, this report was a trial balloon. something is triggering drastic measures. They know the UIPA is not going away. the UIPA is a game changer. thank TeriK for staying on point and for being tenacious.] Leo Donfrio's answer to the question posed below about the newspaper, Colorado Independent. He calls it a "game Changer" I hope so.
.........................................................................................
Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA)
The Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes ("UIPA"), is Hawaii's public records law. The Office of Information Practices ("OIP") was created by the Legislature in 1988 to administer the UIPA.
.........................................................................................
UIPA is a "Game Changer" says Leo Donofrio
.........................................................................................
Alex Says:
September 27, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I don’t know if anyone has posted this yet, but the editor – or it may be the author – at the Colorado Independent posted the following non-answer about the long-form birth certificate:
“** Edit Note: The author has apparently initiated a small blog storm by writing that the “long-form” certificate “does not exist.” This unfortunate turn of phrase was not the result of our uncovering any new information. For those who haven’t followed this pressing matter, this concerns the question of long-form versus short-form birth certificates, which is also the question of “Certificates of Live Birth” versus “Certifications of Live Birth.” Officials at the Hawaiian Dept of Health and officials of the state’s Vital Statistics registrar’s office have verified the president’s birth records, as has the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican who at the time was stumping for Obama’s rival for the presidency, Republican John McCain. The Hawaii Dept of Health also reported the birth to local newspapers at the time, which published birth announcements the week infant Obama, with no designs on the presidency, came into the world. The Colorado Independent subscribes to the reporting on the matter done by Politifact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning factcheck site run by the St Petersburg Times.”
My response:
“Your ‘Editor’s Note’ doesn’t answer anything. How did the author come up with the statement that a long-form birth certificate doesn’t exist? May I remind you of your mission statement:
“The Center for Independent Media is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that operates an independent online news network in the public interest. The Center’s reporters adhere to the highest standards of journalism, follow the code of ethics adopted by the Society of Professional Journalists, and are the recipients of numerous awards for excellence in journalism. The Center views an informed citizenry as a fundamental principle of civil society and American democracy; in the words of the Supreme Court in Garrison v. Louisiana: “Speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.”
The “highest standards of journalism” would include due diligence when making statements of supposed fact. Why did this author write that the long-form birth certificate doesn’t exist? Where exactly did he pull that out of?”
Alex01
[ed. the news rags are propaganda. nobody goes to newspapers for news. that's a joke. the blogs break news. the rags just issue Goebbels PR. This is a good example of doublespeak... the guy starts out as if he will answer the question then doesnt. I told you, this report was a trial balloon. something is triggering drastic measures. they know the UIPA is not going away. the UIPA is a game changer. thank TeriK for staying on point and for being tenacious.]
.........................................................................................
Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA). This is an up-to-date, but "unofficial," copy of the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified), Chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes ("UIPA").
Text of the 2008 Cumulative Supplement of the Hawaii Revised Statutes has been incorporated and noted in this copy. Official text of the UIPA can be found in the Hawaii Revised Statutes and its supplements.
.........................................................................................
PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS
.........................................................................................
[§92F-1] Short title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified). [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]
[§92F-2] Purposes; rules of construction. In a democracy, the people are vested with the ultimate decision-making power. Government agencies exist to aid the people in the formation and conduct of public policy. Opening up the government processes to public scrutiny and participation is the only viable and reasonable method of protecting the public's interest. Therefore the legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions, deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies—shall be conducted as openly as possible.
The policy of conducting government business as openly as possible must be tempered by a recognition of the right of the people to privacy, as embodied in section 6 and section 7 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Hawaii.
This chapter shall be applied and construed to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are to:
(1) Promote the public interest in disclosure;
(2) Provide for accurate, relevant, timely, and complete government records;
(3) Enhance governmental accountability through a general policy of access to government records;
(4) Make government accountable to individuals in the collection, use, and dissemination of information relating to them; and
(5) Balance the individual privacy interest and the public access interest, allowing access unless it would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]
[§92F-3] General definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, in this chapter:
"Agency" means any unit of government in this State, any county, or any combination of counties; department; institution; board; commission; district; council; bureau; office; governing authority; other instrumentality of state or county government; or corporation or other establishment owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of this State or any county, but does not include the nonadministrative functions of the courts of this State.
"Government record" means information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical form.
"Individual" means a natural person.
"Person" means an individual, corporation, government, or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, or any other legal entity.
"Personal record" means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency. It includes, but is not limited to, the individual's education, financial, medical, or employment history, or items that contain or make reference to the individual's name, identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]
[§92F-4] Funding, services, and other federal assistance. Where compliance with any provision of this chapter would cause an agency to lose or be denied funding, services, or other assistance from the federal government, compliance with that provision shall be waived but only to the extent necessary to protect eligibility for federal funding, services, or other assistance. [L 1992, c 118, §1]
........................................................................................
PART II. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
........................................................................................
[§92F-11] Affirmative agency disclosure responsibilities. (a) All government records are open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law.
(b) Except as provided in section 92F-13, each agency upon request by any person shall make government records available for inspection and copying during regular business hours.
(c) Unless the information is readily retrievable by the agency in the form in which it is requested, an agency shall not be required to prepare a compilation or summary of its records.
(d) Each agency shall assure reasonable access to facilities for duplicating records and for making memoranda or abstracts.
(e) Each agency may adopt rules, pursuant to chapter 91, to protect its records from theft, loss, defacement, alteration, or deterioration and to prevent manifestly excessive interference with the discharge of its other lawful responsibilities and functions. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]
§92F-12 Disclosure required. (a) Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:
(1) Rules of procedure, substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy, and interpretations of general applicability adopted by the agency;
(2) Final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders made in the adjudication of cases, except to the extent protected by section 92F-13(1);
(3) Government purchasing information, including all bid results, except to the extent prohibited by section 92F-13;
(4) Pardons and commutations, as well as directory information concerning an individual's presence at any correctional facility;
(5) Land ownership, transfer, and lien records, including real property tax information and leases of state land;
(6) Results of environmental tests;
(7) Minutes of all agency meetings required by law to be public;
(8) Name, address, and occupation of any person borrowing funds from a state or county loan program, and the amount, purpose, and current status of the loan;
(9) Certified payroll records on public works contracts except social security numbers and home addresses;
(10) Regarding contract hires and consultants employed by agencies:
(A) The contract itself, the amount of compensation,
(B) The duration of the contract, and
(C) The objectives of the contract,
except social security numbers and home addresses;
(11) Building permit information within the control of the agency;
(12) Water service consumption data maintained by the boards of water supply;
(13) Rosters of persons holding licenses or permits granted by an agency that may include name, business address, type of license held, and status of the license;
(14) The name, compensation (but only the salary range for employees covered by or included in chapter 76, and sections 302A-602 to 302A-640, and 302A-701, or bargaining unit (8)), job title, business address, business telephone number, job description, education and training background, previous work experience, dates of first and last employment, position number, type of appointment, service computation date, occupational group or class code, bargaining unit code, employing agency name and code, department, division, branch, office, section, unit, and island of employment, of present or former officers or employees of the agency; provided that this paragraph shall not require the creation of a roster of employees; and provided further that this paragraph shall not apply to information regarding present or former employees involved in an undercover capacity in a law enforcement agency;
(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public; and
(16) Information contained in or compiled from a transcript, minutes, report, or summary of a proceeding open to the public.
(b) Any provision to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall also disclose:
(1) Any government record, if the requesting person has the prior written consent of all individuals to whom the record refers;
(2) Government records which, pursuant to federal law or a statute of this State, are expressly authorized to be disclosed to the person requesting access;
(3) Government records pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual;
(4) Government records requested pursuant to an order of a court;
(5) Government records pursuant to a subpoena from either house of the state legislature; and
(6) Information from the motor vehicle registration files, provided that the person requesting such files shall have a legitimate reason as determined by rules. [am L 1996, c 89, §8; am L 2000, c253, §150; am L 2004, c 92, §3; am L 2005, c 85, §1; am L 2007, c 14, §1]
§92F-13 Government records; exceptions to general rule. This part shall not require disclosure of:
(1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(2) Government records pertaining to the prosecution or defense of any judicial or quasi-judicial action to which the State or any county is or may be a party, to the extent that such records would not be discoverable;
(3) Government records that, by their nature, must be confidential in order for the government to avoid the frustration of a legitimate government function;
(4) Government records which, pursuant to state or federal law including an order of any state or federal court, are protected from disclosure; and
(5) Inchoate and draft working papers of legislative committees including budget worksheets and unfiled committee reports; work product; records or transcripts of an investigating committee of the legislature which are closed by rules adopted pursuant to section 21-4 and the personal files of members of the legislature. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1993, c 250, §1]
§92F-14 Significant privacy interest; examples.
(a) Disclosure of a government record shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual.
(b) The following are examples of information in which the individual has a significant privacy interest:
(1) Information relating to medical, psychiatric, or psychological history, diagnosis, condition, treatment, or evaluation, other than directory information while an individual is present at such facility;
(2) Information identifiable as part of an investigation into a possible violation of criminal law, except to the extent that disclosure is necessary to prosecute the violation or to continue the investigation;
(3) Information relating to eligibility for social services or welfare benefits or to the determination of benefit levels;
(4) Information in an agency's personnel file, or applications, nominations, recommendations, or proposals for public employment or appointment to a governmental position, except:
(A) Information disclosed under section 92F-12(a)(14); and
(B) The following information related to employment misconduct that results in an employee's suspension or discharge:
(i) The name of the employee;
(ii) The nature of the employment-related misconduct;
(iii) The agency's summary of the allegations of misconduct;
(iv) Findings of fact and conclusions of law; and
(v) The disciplinary action taken by the agency; when the following has occurred: the highest non-judicial grievance adjustment procedure timely invoked by the employee or the employee's representative has concluded; a written decision sustaining the suspension or discharge has been issued after this procedure; and thirty calendar days have elapsed following the issuance of the decision; provided that this subparagraph shall not apply to a county police department officer except in a case which results in the discharge of the officer;
(5) Information relating to an individual's nongovernmental employment history except as necessary to demonstrate compliance with requirements for a particular government position;
(6) Information describing an individual's finances, income, assets, liabilities, net worth, bank balances, financial history or activities, or creditworthiness;
(7) Information compiled as part of an inquiry into an individual's fitness to be granted or to retain a license, except:
(A) The record of any proceeding resulting in the discipline of a licensee and the grounds for discipline;
(B) Information on the current place of employment and required insurance coverages of licensees; and
(C) The record of complaints including all dispositions; and
(8) Information comprising a personal recommendation or evaluation; and
(9) Social security numbers. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1993, c 191, §1; am L 1995, c 242, §1; am L 2004, c92, §4]
§92F-15 Judicial enforcement.
(a) A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure.
(b) In an action to compel disclosure the circuit court shall hear the matter de novo. Opinions and rulings of the office of information practices shall be admissible. The circuit court may examine the government record at issue, in camera, to assist in determining whether it, or any part of it, may be withheld.
(c) The agency has the burden of proof to establish justification for nondisclosure.
(d) If the complainant prevails in an action brought under this section, the court shall assess against the agency reasonable attorney's fees and all other expenses reasonably incurred in the litigation.
(e) The circuit court in the judicial circuit in which the request for the record is made, where the requested record is maintained, or where the agency's headquarters are located shall have jurisdiction over an action brought under this section.
(f) Except as to cases the circuit court considers of greater importance, proceedings before the court, as authorized by this section, and appeals therefrom, take precedence on the docket over all cases and shall be assigned for hearing and trial or for argument at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1989, c 192, §3]
§92F-15.3 Notice to the office of information practices. When filing a civil action that is under, related to, or is affected by this chapter, a person shall notify the office of information practices in writing at the time of the filing. The office of information practices may intervene in the action.
[L 1998, c 82, §1]
§92F-15.5 Alternative method to appeal a denial of access. (a) When an agency denies a person access to a government record, the person may appeal the denial to the office of information practices in accordance with rules adopted pursuant to section 92F-42(12). A decision to appeal to the office of information practices for review of the agency denial shall not prejudice the person's right to appeal to the circuit court after a decision is made by the office of information practices.
(b) If the decision is to disclose, the office of information practices shall notify the person and the agency, and the agency shall make the record available. If the denial of access is upheld, in whole or in part, the office of information practices shall, in writing, notify the person of the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the right to bring a judicial action under section 92F-15(a). [L 1989, c 192, §1]
[§92F-16] Immunity from liability. Anyone participating in good faith in the disclosure or nondisclosure of a government record shall be immune from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred, imposed or result from such acts or omissions. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]
[§92F-17] Criminal penalties. (a) An officer or employee of an agency who intentionally discloses or provides a copy of a government record, or any confidential information explicitly described by specific confidentiality statutes, to any person or agency with actual knowledge that disclosure is prohibited, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, unless a greater penalty is otherwise provided for by law.
(b) A person who intentionally gains access to or obtains a copy of a government record by false pretense, bribery, or theft, with actual knowledge that access is prohibited. or who intentionally obtains any confidential information by false pretense, bribery, or theft, with actual knowledge that it is prohibited [by] a confidentiality statute, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]
§92F-18 Agency implementation. (a) Each agency shall:
(1) Issue instructions and guidelines necessary to effectuate this chapter; and
(2) Take steps to assure that all its employees and officers responsible for the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of government records are informed of the requirements of this chapter.
(b) Each agency shall compile a public report describing the records it routinely uses or maintains using forms prescribed by the office of information practices. The public reports shall be filed with the office of information practices on or before December 31, 1994. The public reports shall include:
(1) The name and location of each set of records;
(2) The authority under which the records are maintained;
(3) The categories of individuals for whom records are maintained;
(4) The categories of information or data maintained in the records;
(5) The categories of sources of information in the records;
(6) The categories of uses and disclosures made of the records;
(7) The agencies and categories of persons outside of the agency which routinely use the records;
(8) The records routinely used by the agency which are maintained by:
(A) Another agency; or
(B) A person other than an agency;
(9) The policies and practices of the agency regarding storage, retrievability, access controls, retentions, and disposal of the information maintained in records;
(l0) The title, business address, and business telephone number of the agency officer or officers responsible for the records;
(11) The agency procedures whereby an individual may request access to records; and
(12) The number of written requests for access within the preceding year, the number denied, the number of lawsuits initiated against the agency under this part, and the number of suits in which access was granted.
(c) Each agency shall supplement or amend its public report, or file a new report, on or before July 1 of each subsequent year, to ensure that the information remains accurate and complete. Each agency shall file the supplemental, amended, or new report with the office of information practices, which shall make the reports available for public inspection. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1989, c 192, §4; am L 1991, c 167, §2; am L 1992, c 118, §2; am L 1993, c 57, §1]
§92F-19 Limitations on disclosure of government records to other agencies. (a) No agency may disclose or authorize disclosure of government records to any other agency unless the disclosure is:
(1) Necessary for the performance of the requesting agency's duties and functions and is also:
(A) Compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected or obtained; or
(B) Consistent with the conditions or reasonable expectations of use and disclosure under which the information was provided;
(2) To the state archives for the purposes of historic preservation, administrative maintenance, or destruction;
(3) To another agency, another state, or the federal government, or foreign law enforcement agency or authority, if the disclosure is:
(A) For the purpose of a civil or criminal law enforcement activity authorized by law; and
(B) Pursuant to:
(i) A written agreement or written request, or
(ii) A verbal request, made under exigent circumstances, by an officer or employee of the requesting agency whose identity has been verified, provided that such request is promptly confirmed in writing;
(4) To a criminal law enforcement agency of this State, another state, or the federal government, or a foreign criminal law enforcement agency or authority, if the information is limited to an individual's name and other identifying particulars, including present and past places of employment;
(5) To a foreign government pursuant to an executive agreement, compact, treaty, or statute;
(6) To the legislature, or a county council, or any committee or subcommittee thereof;
(7) Pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(8) To authorized officials of another agency, another state, or the federal government for the purpose of auditing or monitoring an agency program that receives federal, state, or county funding;
(9) To the offices of the legislative auditor, the legislative reference bureau, or the ombudsman of this State for the performance of their respective functions;
(10) To the department of human resources development, county personnel agencies, or line agency personnel offices for the performance of their respective duties and functions, including employee recruitment and examination, classification and compensation reviews, the administration and auditing of personnel transactions, the administration of training and safety, workers' compensation, and employee benefits and assistance programs, and for labor relations purposes; or
(11) Otherwise subject to disclosure under this chapter.
(b) An agency receiving government records pursuant to subsection (a) shall be subject to the same restrictions on disclosure of the records as the originating agency. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1993, c 250, §2; L 1994, c 56, §21]
.........................................................................................
PART III. DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL RECORDS
.........................................................................................
Note
Part heading amended by L 1989, c 192, §5.
[§92F-21] Individual's access to own personal record. Each agency that maintains any accessible personal record shall make that record available to the individual to whom it pertains, in a reasonably prompt manner and in a reasonably intelligible form. Where necessary the agency shall provide a translation into common terms of any machine readable code or any code or abbreviation employed for internal agency use. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]
§92F-21.5 REPEALED. L 199O, c 250, §4.
§92F-22 Exemptions and limitations on individual access. An agency is not required by this part to grant an individual access to personal records, or information in such records:
(1) Maintained by an agency that performs as its or as a principal function any activity pertaining to the prevention, control, or reduction of crime, and which consist of:
(A) Information or reports prepared or compiled for the purpose of criminal intelligence or of a criminal investigation, including reports of informers, witnesses, and investigators; or
(B) Reports prepared or compiled at any stage of the process of enforcement of the criminal laws from arrest or indictment through confinement, correctional supervision, and release from supervision.
(2) The disclosure of which would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the agency under an express or implied promise of confidentiality.
(3) Consisting of testing or examination material or scoring keys used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in public employment, or used as or to administer a licensing examination or an academic examination, the disclosure of which would compromise the objectivity, fairness, or effectiveness of the testing or examination process.
(4) Including investigative reports and materials, related to an upcoming, ongoing, or pending civil or criminal action or administrative proceeding against the individual.
(5) Required to be withheld from the individual to whom it pertains by statute or judicial decision or authorized to be so withheld by constitutional or statutory privilege. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1993, c 250, §3]
[92F-23] Access to personal record; initial procedure. Upon the request of an individual to gain access to the individual's personal record, an agency shall permit the individual to review the record and have a copy made within ten working days following the date of receipt of the request by the agency unless the personal record requested is exempted under section 92F-22. The ten-day period may be extended for an additional twenty working days if the agency provides to the individual, within the initial ten working days, a written explanation of unusual circumstances causing the delay.
[L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 2000, c 254, §1]
[§92F-24] Right to correct personal record; initial procedure.(a) An individual has a right to have any factual error in that person's personal record corrected and any misrepresentation or misleading entry in the record amended by the agency which is responsible for its maintenance.
(b) Within twenty business days after receipt of a written request to correct or amend a personal record and evidence that the personal record contains a factual error, misrepresentation, or misleading entry, an agency shall acknowledge receipt of the request and purported evidence in writing and promptly:
(1) Make the requested correction or amendment; or
(2) Inform the individual in writing of its refusal to correct or amend the personal record, the reason for the refusal, and the agency procedures for review of the refusal. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]
§92F-25 Correction and amendment; review procedures. (a) Not later than thirty business days after receipt of a request for review of an agency refusal to allow correction or amendment of a personal record, the agency shall make a final determination.
(b) If the agency refuses upon final determination to allow correction or amendment of a personal record, the agency shall so state in writing and:
(1) Permit, whenever appropriate, the individual to file in the record a concise statement setting forth the reasons for the individual's disagreement with the refusal of the agency to correct or amend it; and
(2) Notify the individual of the applicable procedures for obtaining appropriate judicial remedy. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1989, c 192, §6]
§92F-26 Rules. The office of information practices shall adopt rules, under chapter 91, establishing procedures necessary to implement or administer this part, which the agencies shall adopt, insofar as practicable, in order to ensure uniformity among state and county agencies. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1989, c 192, §7]
§92F-27 Civil actions and remedies. (a) An individual may bring a civil action against an agency in a circuit court of the State whenever an agency fails to comply with any provision of this part, and after appropriate administrative remedies under sections 92F-23, 92F-24, and 92F-25 have been exhausted.
(b) In any action brought under this section the court may order the agency to correct or amend the complainant's personal record, to require any other agency action, or to enjoin such agency from improper actions as the court may deem necessary and appropriate to render substantial relief.
(c) In any action brought under this section in which the court determines that the agency knowingly or intentionally violated a provision of this part, the agency shall be liable to the complainant in an amount equal to the sum of:
(1) Actual damages sustained by the complainant as a result of the failure of the agency to properly maintain the personal record, but in no case shall a complainant (individual) entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of $1,000; and
(2) The costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.
(d) The court may assess reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred against the agency in any case in which the complainant has substantially prevailed, and against the complainant where the charges brought against the agency were frivolous.
(e) An action may be brought in the circuit court where the complainant resides, the complainant's principal place of business is situated, or the complainant's relevant personal record is situated. No action shall be brought later than two years after notification of the agency denial, or where applicable, the date of receipt of the final determination of the office of information practices. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1989, c 192, §8]
§92F-27.5 Alternative method to appeal a denial of access. (a) When an agency denies an individual access to that individual's personal record, the individual may appeal the denial to the office of information practices in accordance with rules adopted pursuant to section 92F-42(12). A decision to appeal to the office of information practices for review of the agency denial shall not prejudice the individual's right to appeal to the circuit court after a decision is made by the office of information practices.
(b) If the decision is to disclose, the office of information practices shall notify the individual and the agency, and the agency shall make the record available. If the denial of access is upheld, in whole or in part, the office of information practices shall, in writing, notify the individual of the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the right to bring a judicial action under section 92F-27. [L 1989, c 192, §2]
[§92F-28] Access to personal records by order in judicial or administrative proceedings; access as authorized or required by other law. Nothing in this part shall be construed to permit or require an agency to withhold or deny access to a personal record, or any information in a personal record:
(1) When the agency is ordered to produce, disclose, or allow access to the record or information in the record, or when discovery of such record or information is allowed by prevailing rules of discovery or by subpoena, in any judicial or administrative proceeding; or
(2) Where any statute, administrative rules, rule of court, judicial decision, or other law authorizes or allows an individual to gain access to a personal record or to any information in a personal record or requires that the individual be given such access. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]
PART IV. OFFICE OF INFORMATION PRACTlCES; DUTIES
§92F-41 Office of information practices; established. (a) There is established a temporary office of information practices for a special purpose within the office of the lieutenant governor for administrative purposes.
(b) The governor shall appoint a director of the office of information practices to be its chief executive officer and who shall be exempt from chapter 76.
(c) All powers and duties of the office of information practices are vested in the director and may be delegated to any other officer or employee of the office.
(d) The director may employ such other personnel as are necessary, including but not limited to attorneys and clerical staff without regard to chapter 76. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1989, c 192, §9; am L 1998, c 137, §4; am L 2000, c 253, §150 ]
§92F-42 Powers and duties of the office of information practices. The director of the office of information practices:
(1) Shall, upon request, review and rule on an agency denial of access to information or records, or an agency's granting of access; provided that any review by the office of information practices shall not be a contested case under chapter 91 and shall be optional and without prejudice to rights of judicial enforcement available under this chapter;
(2) Upon request by an agency, shall provide and make public advisory guidelines, opinions, or other information concerning that agency's functions and responsibilities;
(3) Upon request by any person, may provide advisory opinions or other information regarding that person's rights and the functions and responsibilities of agencies under this chapter;
(4) May conduct inquiries regarding compliance by an agency and investigate possible violations by any agency;
(5) May examine the records of any agency for the purpose of paragraph (4) and seek to enforce that power in the courts of this State;
(6) May recommend disciplinary action to appropriate officers of an agency;
(7) Shall report annually to the governor and the state legislature on the activities and findings of the office of information practices, including recommendations for legislative changes;
(8) Shall receive complaints from and actively solicit the comments of the public regarding the implementation of this chapter;
(9) Shall review the official acts, records, policies, and procedures of each agency;
(10) Shall assist agencies in complying with the provisions of this chapter;
(11) Shall inform the public of the following rights of an individual and the procedures for exercising them:
(A) The right of access to records pertaining to the individual;
(B) The right to obtain a copy of records pertaining to the individual;
(C) The right to know the purposes for which records pertaining to the individual are kept;
(D) The right to be informed of the uses and disclosures of records pertaining to the individual;
(E) The right to correct or amend records pertaining to the individual; and
(F) The individual's right to place a statement in a record pertaining to that individual;
(12) Shall adopt rules that set forth an administrative appeals structure which provides for:
(A) Agency procedures for processing records requests;
(B) A direct appeal from the division maintaining the record; and
(C) Time limits for action by agencies;
(13) Shall adopt rules that set forth the fees and other charges that may be imposed for searching, reviewing, or segregating disclosable records, as well as to provide for a waiver of such fees when the public interest would be served;
(14) Shall adopt rules which set forth uniform standards for the records collection practices of agencies;
(15) Shall adopt rules that set forth uniform standards for disclosure of records for research purposes;
(16) Shall have standing to appear in cases where the provisions of this chapter are called into question;
(17) Shall adopt, amend, or repeal rules pursuant to chapter 91 necessary for the purposes of this chapter; and
(18) Shall take action to oversee compliance with Part I of chapter 92 by all state and county boards including:
(A) Receiving and resolving complaints;
(B) Advising all government boards and the public about compliance with chapter 92; and
(C) Reporting each year to the legislature on all complaints received pursuant to section 92-1.5.
[L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1989, c 192, §10; am L 1998, c 137, §5]
..........................................................................................
A comment that is interesting from bho boo
..........................................................................................
bho boo Says:
September 27, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I think this is just phase one. There’s no way the marxist usurpation will be intercepted by forcing documentation. He’s got to have failsafe plans in the works, even if DoH officials are held to account, there will be nothing shown, it will have all been destroyed by now. He’s looking to shut down the internet, the only real news source left available. We have to ask ourselves, with the number of corrupt gov’t officials willing to break the law for enrichment or their own crony agendas, just how deep does the corruption run, does it go down to the levels of members imposing marshall law or is that why BO’s busily recruiting his youth brigades now and letting black panthers off the hook? If so, we need to intercept this before he’s got armed zombies willing to take down the American citizenry. We may work the legal end only to find a thug with a club as the reward, and ask what if the next level of resistance just doesn’t care about laws, about documents. They already have shown contempt for us citizens, the judiciary is corrupt, so what’s next? Certainly not their cooperation, though I am not ruling out the great importance of voting out the demarxists in 2010.
All I’m saying is that valiant truthful efforts have been thwarted by an unanticipated level of overt corruption and criminality. We can’t be caught unawares any longer, even if we have the law on our side, they will not uphold it–”they” being key gov’t officials who’ve been bribed coerced threatened or who are complicit. We have to have people to GO AROUND to, and a back up plan for when we are met with corruption, such as clerks forgetting to file, or judges who rationalize with twitter, etc. The problem is that up the legal food chain you find more and more Obama corrupt cronies like Holder, so that can’t be the answer!!
[ed. until we exercise the law to the best of our ability we will be guilty of failing our duty. the UIPA has not been tested. in fact, it's already revealed that his vital records have been amended... that has been proved and confirmed by the DoH via their denial of access to TerriK.]
..........................................................................................
Leo's answer to a question gives me hope that yes obama can and will be exposed. Read his answer to another question below. Better sooner than later.
..........................................................................................
RJJohnson Says:
September 27, 2009 at 5:29 pm
TerriK to Fukino:
1.) I request an electronic copy of the invoice and receipt for the fee(s) charged to and paid by President Barack Obama, or anyone claiming to represent him, for amendments made to his vital records…
Joesting to TerriIK:
If no amendments were made, there would not be any such documents and the agency should inform you of that fact.
Okubo to TerriK:
You have not shown that you have such an interest in President Obama’s birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or any related information. We now consider this matter closed.
Okubo can and should disclose if the requested documents exist or don’t exist at the DoH. She did not explicitly do this. Was this a deliberate incomplete response, or did Okubo implicitly indicate that the requested documents do exist? That is the question.
.........................................................................................
[ed. by denying access, she has admitted that the records are maintained by the DoH. Her repsonses have a pattern of trying to hide this. But she can't deny access to a record they do not maintain. It's such a simple concept but they are depending on the ADD of the citizens and we are determined to enlighten the citizens.
The OIP administrative rules are clear. Joesting has confirmed that if they do not have the records they are to inform you of that. If they deny access then they are admitting they have the records. People are not understanding this fine point. Doesn't really matter... we're going to get the records we need one way or the other. whether people understand it or not. The UIPA is a very good law and the OIP appears ready to enforce it.
The DoH and OIP are going to face off down the road... I'm not saying there won't be bumps in the road, but I believe we can win this battle for information.]
.........................................................................................
Another question and another answer from Leo Donofrio.
.........................................................................................
Pete Says:
September 27, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Leo,
The question to the DoH is: Was a receipt generated for the sale of a COLB for Barrack Obama for June 7th 2007. We are NOT requesting personal information, only to humbly ask the state if payment for a government sale took place for COLB for said individual. I repeat, we are not asking for any identifiable information, just if a bill of sale exists, and the price and date of the transaction.
Refusing to answer, specifically asking that no personal information be released, is to deny the public information on government transactions. That clearly violates the spirit of their UPIA laws.
[ed. we are on this and are prepared to appeal it all the way... this and more.]
.........................................................................................
Another good question for Leo about the "kenyan birth certificate"
.........................................................................................
MadeinAmerica Says:
September 27, 2009 at 10:00 pm
What do you make of Lucas Smith’s claim that he has the original Kenyan birth certificate?
[ed. the UIPA is where my focus is at. i know the UIPA is real and I know we need to utilize ourselves of it... get the real BC info on the record, get the nbc statement info on the record...and move on to the British birth as a nation. That's my focus. I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. If our investigation reveals otherwise, then our burden of proof for him not being nbc is lessened.]
........................................................................................
A question to Leo about Barry Soetoro changing his name to Barack H. Obama
........................................................................................
Tian Min Says:
September 27, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Leo,
Regarding the issue of whether Barack Obama ever used Barry Soetoro as his legal name, maybe the following information would be useful:
I lived in Hawaii for most of the ’80s and ’90s. During that time, I legally changed my name. In Hawaii in the ’80s, name changes were done by executive order of the Lieutenant Governor, rather than through the courts like in most other states. The procedure was remarkably simple–nothing more than submitting the paperwork and filing fee to the Lieutenant Governor’s office and publishing a legal notice for three days in the newspapers. No hearing was held and no judge or lawyers were required, nor was it necessary to even state a reason for wanting the name changed. Note, this transaction did not involve the Department of Health, nor was there anything private about it.
If Barack Obama had a legal name change in Hawaii, there should be archival records at the Lieutenant Governor’s office and probably also from the Honolulu Advertiser and/or Star-Bulletin.
Keep up the good work!
[ed. name changes are not private...and we have been looking into this since last week. good observation.]
.........................................................................................
Oh ya I would like to see this happen. I believe Leo can make it happen. Go Leo!!!!!!!!!
.........................................................................................
O-bam-boozled Says:
September 28, 2009 at 11:02 am
If you can get Hawaiian gov’t officials to acknowledge that the birth certificate posted on FactCheck.org is not real, Obama is toast.
The reason being: That FactCheck.org birth certificate is what many Congressmen/women relied upon in their letters to constituents to justify Obama was/is a legitimate president.
If Hawaii officials concede that is not legitimate, the fat lady is singing.
[ed. we are on this....]
........................................................................................
Yes Yes Yes, lets all request some information from Hawaii. I will be making my request tommorrow. Can't wait to get an answer. I want to be a part of exposing the imposter/fraud obama!
........................................................................................
Leo:
Re: your comment above “…but there.s no way he’s nbc since at the time of his birth, he was British…”
While you and TerriK are at it I respectfully request (without a hint of previously alleged salaciousness or defamation…an allegation which I must protest as being defamatory towards my anonymous persona, Seizethecarp, on behalf of my anonymous persona ;-) …) …I request that you or others request the HI vital index history for Stanley Ann Dunham with special attention to the index for a record in which you have absolute confidence as to its existence, that being her marriage on Maui in 1961.
*****************************************************************************************
[ed. yes, we have that on our list. I will add that there is nothing stopping anyone else from requesting the same...you don't even have to give your real name to do so.]
*****************************************************************************************
The best evidence to date, a 1964 divorce decree for the marriage, supports the fact of that marriage.
Note that Obama himself stated in “Dreams” without a hint of salaciousness or defamation towards his parents:
“How and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I have never quite had the courage to explore.”
[ed. good quote...]
.........................................................................................
Wow! Leo fires another silver bullet here in his answer to a question!!!!! I'm real excited about what Leo is saying. Man he is riding the BIG WAVE NOW. :)
.........................................................................................
bho boo Says:
September 28, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Leo, of course DoH will not obey its own laws, they haven’t so far, and in panic mode you can expect Obama attorneys to twitterify any motions. Like I said, we oughtn’t be surprised any longer, this is a bloodless marxist coup, so far, but that doesn’t mean they won’t uptick things as necessary.
[ed. it's going to take more than the DoH to stop the information coming out. My research is showing this is a slam dunk. You would need the OIP to reverse about 10 Opinion Letters and then you'd need the Hawaii Supreme Court to reverse itself. I am not fooling around here.]
........................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
