Posted on 02/19/2010 9:27:00 AM PST by butterdezillion
What do you think “standing” means as a legal term?
Another thing. That article says it’s just Okubo giving the responses now. But now the responses don’t have her name on it. The e-mails being sent out are from:
Hawaii Department of Health
Public Information Office staff
Send mail to:
State Department of Health
Office of Health Status Monitoring
Issuance/Vital Statistics Section/UIPA Request
Honolulu, HI 97801
hdohinfo@doh.hawaii.gov
Second, Okubo was supposed to be in Florida for a gathering this whole week. I received an auto-response on Monday:
I am out of the office attending the 2010 Local, State, and Federal Public Health Preparedness Summit. If you need immediate assistance, please call 586-4442 or 586-4400. I will respond to your e-mail when I return to the office on Monday, February 22.
And then on Tuesday some innocent office worker substitute, who had to take the brunt of the Facebook onslaught, did what Okubo has never been willing to do: he/she clicked “Yes” rather than “No”, thereby allowing me to have a receipt that they had received my e-mail.
Both the numbers she gave are Hawaii numbers. I suppose the reporter called the office and got Okubo’s phone number at the summit, for her to be able to comment for the story.
*yawn*
Your pathetic OPINION is SOOOO tired.
Possibly.
But I am likely correct.
Scratch that. In regards to standing, I am absolutely correct.
It means that you suffer personal material harm which means that you have a legitimate interest in seeing a legal request be acted upon by the judiciary.
Layman’s terms.
God knows that things that affect EVERYBODY aren’t worthy of judicial attention. cough.
I actually wonder what whistle-blower laws would say about all this.
Obviously you haven’t a clue.
Anyone who has been denied a UIPA request for records has automatic standing with a right to a judicial appeal.
Our problem is finding an attorney to file that appeal.
So, I can EASILY imagine, that an COURT APPEAL would be automatic if you were to be declared “vexatious.”
Read and weep, LOSER:
“What are an individual’s rights if denied a record?
Under the UIPA, an individual can:
* appeal a denial of access to a government record, including personal records, to the OIP; or
[Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-15.5]
* bring an action against the agency in circuit court.
[Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-15]
An individual does not have to appeal to the OIP before filing a lawsuit.
[Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-15.5]”
http://hawaii.gov/oip/guidancefaqs.html#whataretheindividualsrights
No, you aren’t. *snicker*
http://hawaii.gov/oip/guidancefaqs.html#whataretheindividualsrights
“Scratch that. In regards to standing, I am absolutely correct.”
The right to an appeal of a decision isn’t the right to a reversal of a decision.
Sucks to be a loser named “El Sardo.”
The right to an appeal of a decision isn’t the right to a reversal of a decision.”
DUH. Ya think?
I said STANDING. Which is the right to have your case heard in court. In this case, in front of a judge.
Loser. Go away, LOSER. You LOSE.
And this is flat out incorrect.
You seem to be presuming that you get to be the arbiter of whether or not your claim is vexatious or not based on what you think of the documents you are demanding.
It's childish and only serves to denigrate themselves.
Did you notice that in the article the attorney they quote is Jeff Portnay - the Advertiser’s own attorney?
I wonder what any other attorney would say if they realized that the requests are for the non-certified abbreviated birth certificate - which is required to be released to anybody who asks for it, according to Administrative Rules and UIPA.
There is no concern over identity theft from a non-certified document. That’s why anybody can get it. That’s why the DOH Director can allow any INFORMATION from the certificate to be released as index data. The only reason to protect the birth certificate itself - even though it has no social security number or information that could be used to access a person’s finances, etc - is to keep people from having the CERTIFYING elements. Because a document is only legally-admissible if it has those certifying elements.
The DOH has been feeding us a load of crap all along on this. The OIP has ruled that gender and address are the 2 items from a BC that hold a privacy interest. But yet those are supposedly the very items that were released by the DOH in the birth announcements. Go figure. This whole thing is just a boatload of crap. They know it, and soon everybody else will also.
D’uh loser.
YES. The BC would be viewed by a judge IN CAMERA on appeal.
You are flat out WRONG.
Yes, the BC could be VIEWED on judicial appeal.
Because you are a loser and need to be told so.
Stolen from another poster (as in, not my words, but I think they are a clear explanation so I will swipe them):
Standing is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. It is a very important concept, without which courts would drown under the weight of cases they can’t meaningfully resolve. Too many people think a court is like Solomon—you go to it for a decision on anything that bugs you. Courts are actually an administrative mechanism for resolving technical legal disputes that can be framed in specific ways.
There are three standing requirements:
(1) Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
(2) Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
(3) Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
The cases to date have not met those requirements, and have rightfully been dismissed. Most particualrly, they have proposed some abstract injury. Too many proponents fail to appreciate that point because they confuse the idea that they, as citizens, have the right to question their leaders with the technical issue of standing in a specific legal case.
Well, good luck with that.
Yes. I realize this. AND?
STANDING IS AUTOMATIC WITH A DENIED UIPA REQUEST.
Get it now?
Well, if it makes you feel better to insult people who would argue that you are in error, then by all means.
But I will not treat you in kind.
Good luck with you efforts. Please do not let yourself get emotionally enmeshed in this. That will just bring you pain.
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.