Replies

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.

If I am not allowed to get what is accessible to any person according to Hawaii statute and rules - because some bureaucrat labels me a “vexatious requestor” - then not only am I suffering a personal injury, but the bureaucrats have been given permission to totally ignore open records laws or any other laws simply because they use the Alinsky tactic of labeling somebody they don’t like. It’s what Judge Robertson of “The Magnificent Seven” fame has tried to do with Orly also. Only this is not at a community-organizer, peon level. This is at the state legislature and Circuit Court level. Wow. Just wow.

This is supposed to get a hearing in Hawaii. Anybody from Hawaii who doesn’t want to see your open records laws totally destroyed better speak up now.

That’s the level they’re going to with this. They are unwilling to undo the open records law’s real power for the sake of covering for Obama - and all this in response to having received an official request for an investigation of illegal and unethical behavior which has been documented online.

Trying to undo the open records laws as well as all the other laws and rules they’ve ignored or outright disobeyed. Maybe I need to add that to my blog when I get some time.