Did Obama attemp to change his vital records?
Jeff M Says:
September 21, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Leo,
You're going to bump uglies with this:
§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;
Watch out as the court will attempt to lay a nice veil over the intent of this section.
[Ed. The invasion of privacy has to outweigh the public interest and the public interest is specifically attached to the working of Government... but this case is not technically an issue regarding Obama's personal vital records...but rather the issue she sought pertained to whether he requested to amend them or if he actually amended them. Those requests, even a request to see his records is itself a government record under the UIPA and as such she requested to see it --- NOT the actual vital records themselves.
TerriK was originally interested in whether or not he made a request to amend his records and to inspect them for the purpose of amending. Those requests (not the actual amendments) do not appear to be protected according to the statute and various opinions issued by the state... regardless... TerriK's requests to see the amendments had to be answered in one of three ways according to the statute and the manual:
1. we have the record you requested and will provide them
2. we don't maintain the records you requested (aka we don't have any such records in file)
3. we have the records, but you are not entitled to see them
She was told on two occasions by an OIP staff attorney that if no such records exist, they must notify her of that fact.
Eventually that same staff attorney, acting on advice of the DoH told TerriK that the records were not available as they were protected. Their official response was that she wasn't allowed access to those records... They never told her that they didn't maintain these records she requested. If they didn't have such records, then they would have been required to tell her the records don't exist.
THE ISSUES
Section 92F-12(15) states that the following must be released to the public:
(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;
On July 27, 2009 Hawaii Department of Health Director Fukino issued a press release which 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."
TerriK requested all information "collected and maintained" for the purposes of preparing the public statement made by Director Fukino as such information must be released according to the statute.
TerriK was interested in knowing how Director Fukino came to the conclusion that the President was a natural born citizen. She was familiar with Section 92F-12(15) which demands that all information collected and maintained for the purposes of making such a public statement be made public. She was denied that information despite the clear wording in the statute. Furthermore, the case law from Hawaii clearly demands production of the records TerriK requested.
I will provide legal research and relevant examples of official correspondence in my follow up report and press release at this blog. TerriK has previously provided details of her investigation and correspondence with the state of Hawaii in comments to this and other blogs. She has also authorized me to speak publicly about her case and to provide the public with all relevant correspondence.
Furthermore, Hawaii officials - upon denying TerriK access to information requested - were required by statute to inform her of a right to appeal by trial de novo in Hawaii circuit court. They failed to provide such guidance to her. Section 92F-15.5(b) states:
(b)... 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]
The OIP failed to notify TerriK of her right to a judicial appeal. Instead, the OIP simply told her that the decision to deny access was correct and that they could not help her any further.
We will bring this litigation according to the following statute provision:
§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.
Please take note of subsection (c) above. The burden of proof is on the agency to establish justification for nondisclosure.
With respect to information collected by Director Fukino for purposes of making her July 27, 2009 press release (and other public statements), the burden cannot be overcome since the statute demands that such information be made public.
If Obama has attempted to amend his vital records, or even if he has asked for access to amend his vital records, isn't that a public record? The law says it is. Why would Obama, if he has attempted to change his virtal records, want to keep this information from the public?
ex animo
davidfarrar
