Posted on 10/01/2009 12:06:32 PM PDT by STARWISE
Complete title (too long for the space)
TerriK INVESTIGATION, Part 3: Hawaii AG Mark Bennett Approved Fukino’s Natural-Born Citizen Statement; All Records Should Be Made Public According To Law.
###
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.
Rest @ link
Very Very soon, it’s really gonna suck (if not so already) to be a Hawiian official even remotely associated to this.
LOL.
I’ll drink to that ...... twice, maybe thrice ... ;)
Given the HI “secret law” opinion (OIP 90-40) I would imagine that the path of least resistance is now to petition AG Mark Bennett...
My guess is we get the bird from them. I doubt they risk phonys docs. They may provide docs where everything is redacted.
Gary Kreep said in his case that the DOJ will do anything to avoid discovery.
“So the HI AG is involved?”
I’m beginning to think that there’s nobody (not even the GOP governor) beyond corruption in the state of Hawaii when it comes to the cause of defending Zero.
This country needs an enema, and that’s going to involve a lot of gallows; treason carries the death penalty.
I think that’s a bit too hopeful - all the conservative lawyers have already proven themselves too chickens*** to get involved in this case.
Which is why we’re stuck with Orly Taitz going off the deep end in courtrooms and TV interviews, and selling her body to her legal team to pay the bills.
I'll just keep asking Obama, "What are you Hiding and Why?"
Why are you silent?
Updated Donofrio comment:
##
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.]
I think we need a plan where thousands start calling, writing and faxing requests for docs if they screw around with Leo. Hawaii is corrupt.
BTTT
ping
Removing Soetoro from office is priority one. The man is destroying the dollar and bankrupting the country.
I just read Donofrio’s TerriK part 3. Hawaii is going to have a hard time trying to wiggle off the hook on this one.
Yes, you bet. Hawaii is going to have to cough up. To give you an idea look below:
-snip-
--------
"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…
"
- snip -
"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."
-snip-
"THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LETTER MUST BE DISCLOSED.
-snip-
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).
Uh oh! Get em Leo & Terri! Thanks for pointing this out.
I was reading Orly’s response she filed tonight to Judge Carter. It was top notch.
Good job by this “Justin” too. Aloha Justin, LOL!
Giving Leo and Terri K some time but I may be sending an Aloha letter to Janice too.
If Hawaii jerks Leo around we will need to send a million Aloha letters and calls and emails to them.
I was just thinking about Taitz’s sur-reply. I’ll go read over and read that. The Obots must be doing the same LoL!
Cool, look’n forward to it. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.