Forcing the issue of Natural Born Citizenship: How to get standing to have the question resolved.

originally posted by: hellobruce
Wrong, it is still private.

HE HAS SUPPOSEDLY MADE IT PUBLIC. SO THERE IS NO PRIVACY TO PROTECT...

...supposedly.

*drops the mic*

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
SURE. FOR THE THIRD TIME...it's the Uniform Information Practices Act: UIPA

You obviously never looked at that page, as you missed this!

U Memo 11-7 October 13, 2010 Vital Records Requester asked whether the Office of Health Statistics, Department of Health (DOH), properly denied Requester’s request for a certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama II (Obama Birth Certificate) under part II of the UIPA. Requester asked for a copy of the Obama birth certificate citing the provision of Hawaii’s vital statistics law that makes vital records confidential, but permits copies to be provided where DOH is satisfied that the requester has a direct and tangible interest in the record, such as a “a person having a common ancestor with the registrant.” HRS § 338-18(b)(5). The Requester claimed a common ancestor of either Noah or Adam from Biblical reference or the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from scientific theory. DOH denied access, applying HRS § 338-18(b)(5) to limit common ancestors to those shown by verifiable vital records, and rejecting a construction that included all of humankind. OIP found that DOH’s withholding was proper under HRS § 338-18(b)(5) and HRS § 92F-13(4). HRS § 1-15(3) (under Hawaii law, every construction of the law “which leads to an absurdity shall be rejected.”).

So people do not have access to private records!

And here is the precedent and controlling opinion

Not relevant, as seen above!

So again you have nothing but made up birther crap!

a reply to: hellobruce

Not relevant because the agency has STILL not opined on my case. They are sitting on it.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
HE HAS SUPPOSEDLY MADE IT PUBLIC. SO THERE IS NO PRIVACY TO PROTECT...

You are still wrong.

health.hawaii.gov...

Here is a court case (one of the 200+ that birthers lost) that shows that again you are wrong!
www.courts.state.hi.us...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: hellobruce

Not relevant because the agency has STILL not opined on my case. They are sitting on it.

They are just ignoring it as you have no right to see private records!

Then there is...

OIP found that DOH’s withholding was proper under HRS § 338-18(b)(5) and HRS § 92F-13(4). HRS § 1-15(3) (under Hawaii law, every construction of the law “which leads to an absurdity shall be rejected.”).

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
HE HAS SUPPOSEDLY MADE IT PUBLIC. SO THERE IS NO PRIVACY TO PROTECT...

You are still wrong.

health.hawaii.gov...

Here is a court case (one of the 200+ that birthers lost) that shows that again you are wrong!
www.courts.state.hi.us...

His birth certificate is available on line so its no longer private record. He was born in Hawaii so the argument you two are having is very silly. Obama requested a copy and was sent a copy that they then placed online. I'm amazed people still buy onto this birth certificate stuff started by Hillarys campaign. She was losing and got desperate.

originally posted by: dragonridr
I'm amazed people still buy onto this birth certificate stuff started by Hillarys campaign. She was losing and got desperate.

Hillary won the popular vote. The only reason Obama got the nomination is because the DNC Rules & Bylaws committee awarded Obama 600,000 votes cast for Hillary in Michigan even though he voluntarily withdrew his name from the ballot.

I'm no Hillary fan, but the 2008 primary was essentially a tie until then.

Also, I think it's "silly" for the HDOH to withhold a record that's already been made public from members of the public requesting it or verification of it.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Obama made his birth certificate PUBLIC...not just to a select few in state government. We have seen it, and have every right to verify it now rather than take the word of any corrupt people in our state/federal governement.

IT'S ALREADY BEEN MADE PUBLIC...allegedly. It's a public record now according to Hawaii's open records law.

I am not going round and round on this anymore because I actually provided you the links to that information directly from the Hawaii State Government.

Hawai'i cannot, by State law, provide a copy of the BC to anyone without a specific interest in it as defined by that State law. Obama is one such person with such a lawfully defined specific interest in it - you are not.

Obama has obtained a certified copy of the BC from the State of Hawai'i as per Hawai'i state law. What he does with his personal copy is his business and his business alone - the State of Hawai'i has no say over what he does with his legally obtained certified copy.

Hawai'i still has a legal obligation to protect the vital records its maintains from unlawful access. The fact that Obama published his copy of the Birth Certificate does not change that Hawai'ian Legal requirement.

The Hawai'ian legal obligation has nothing to do with whether or not the BC has been published by Obama.

How many ways does that need to be worded for you to understand?

Obama's actions with regard to the piece of paper that contains the certified copy obtained from the State of Hawai'i does not affect the obligations of the State of Hawai'i to follow Hawai'ian law about who it grant access to birth certificates.

The State of Hawai'i did not publish Obama's birth certificate, Obama did, and Obama's actions have no relevance to Hawai'ian legal requirements.


What Obama does with that copy his Obama's business and Obama's business alone.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Also, I think it's "silly" for the HDOH to withhold a record that's already been made public from members of the public requesting it or verification of it.

What part of it being a private record do you not understand?

originally posted by: dragonridr
His birth certificate is available on line so its no longer private record.

Wrong, as I showed it is still a private record.

originally posted by: rnaa
Hawai'i still has a legal obligation to protect the vital records its maintains from unlawful access. The fact that Obama published his copy of the Birth Certificate does not change that Hawai'ian Legal requirement.

The Hawai'ian legal obligation has nothing to do with whether or not the BC has been published by Obama.

And, again, Hawaii's open records law (UIPA) includes several other laws that mandate the record is public -- despite the tangible interest statute.

Furthermore, the OIP opinion I cited, for hellobruce, is an actual precedent case by the agency that oversees the UIPA, and it illustrates precisely why it's public -- not private -- despite the tangible interest statute.

That opinion deals with Coach June B. Jones' contract, with the University of Hawaii, which was considered private by statute. But under the UIPA, it was determined to be public because the terms of that contract had already been made public in the media. The UIPA is controlling in such cases.

As the OIP determined, "You cannot unring a bell."

I am awaiting an OIP opinion on this very argument and have been for a couple of years. They claim to be backlogged.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
And, again, Hawaii's open records law (UIPA) includes several other laws that mandate the record is public

Very wrong again, it is a private record, not a public record. That fact was repeated in a court case I linked to.

I am awaiting an OIP opinion on this very argument and have been for a couple of years. They claim to be backlogged.

They are just ignoring you, as they are allowed to.

Remember this?

U Memo 11-7 October 13, 2010 Vital Records Requester asked whether the Office of Health Statistics, Department of Health (DOH), properly denied Requester’s request for a certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama II (Obama Birth Certificate) under part II of the UIPA. Requester asked for a copy of the Obama birth certificate citing the provision of Hawaii’s vital statistics law that makes vital records confidential, but permits copies to be provided where DOH is satisfied that the requester has a direct and tangible interest in the record, such as a “a person having a common ancestor with the registrant.” HRS § 338-18(b)(5). The Requester claimed a common ancestor of either Noah or Adam from Biblical reference or the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from scientific theory. DOH denied access, applying HRS § 338-18(b)(5) to limit common ancestors to those shown by verifiable vital records, and rejecting a construction that included all of humankind. OIP found that DOH’s withholding was proper under HRS § 338-18(b)(5) and HRS § 92F-13(4). HRS § 1-15(3) (under Hawaii law, every construction of the law “which leads to an absurdity shall be rejected.”).

Why do you ignore this? Linked to earlier?

The Director responded by writing a letter to Plaintiff dated January 23, 2009, denying Plaintiff's request. The Director explained that HRS ÿÿ 338-18(b) (2010) prohibited the DOH from disclosing to Plaintiff the records he sought and that HRS ÿÿ 92F-13(4) (1993) of the UIPA did not require disclosure of government records protected from disclosure by state law.

So private records are private, you cannot see them. Which is why your request is properly ignored.

Why is that so hard to accept?

In the appeal the court stated

1. Vital statistics records maintained by the State of Hawai » i are confidential except to those persons who have a direct and tangible interest in those records by virtue of specific relationships that must be established pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS") ÿÿ338-18(b).......
HRS ÿÿ92F-13(4) specifically excludes from disclosure those government records which pursuant to state or federal law are protected from
disclosure, such as vital statistics records.

So again they are private records!

Also

HRS ÿÿ 338-18(b) specifically prohibits the DOH from permitting the inspection, or issuing certified copies, of public health statistics records, including birth records, unless "the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record."

a reply to: hellobruce

The only opinion I care to hear about, pertaining to my open records request appeal, is the OIP's. They have not issued an opinion yet.

So, I'm not likely to respond to any more of your prejudiced, non-informed, lay-person opinions on this legal matter.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
So, I'm not likely to respond to any more of your prejudiced, non-informed, lay-person opinions on this legal matter.

Let us see, I post the court case, and some of the transcript of the courts decision which shows that Obama's records are private, yet you claim that it is my opinion?

Wrong again, it is the facts, as shown by the court case, that private records are private!

Despite your prejudiced, non-informed, lay-person opinions on this legal matter, the courts have spoken and private records are private!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
So, I'm not likely to respond to any more of your prejudiced, non-informed, lay-person opinions on this legal matter.

Let us see, I post the court case, and some of the transcript of the courts decision which shows that Obama's records are private, yet you claim that it is my opinion?

Wrong again, it is the facts, as shown by the court case, that private records are private!

Despite your prejudiced, non-informed, lay-person opinions on this legal matter, the courts have spoken and private records are private!

All legal arguments are not equal. Surely, you understand that. To be honest, most of the cases dealing with the matter of Obama's birth certificate, appear to be deliberately sabotaged. For example, the ridiculous case you cited earlier...that someone shares a common ancestor via an 'Adam and Eve' argument.

That is crap. That reeks of controlled opposition.

What I am arguing is far more legally sound. I have cited the proper open records laws, I've cited similar case precedent and I have no interest in arguing anyone else's weak case.

I don't care about your legal opinion. I am only concerned with the OIP's opinion. And I cannot imagine they would be anxious to write an opinion undoing their previous opinion, and setting new precedent that is in clear violation of the Act backed by illogical legal thinking.

The record has allegedly already been made public, there is no sound legal reason to keep it private, the public's interest outweighs any interest in keeping it private (according to the 'spirit of the UIPA'), AND the public has a right to verify what they were presented is authentic.

I never cited the cases you are citing -- they have nothing to do with my appeal --- I TOLD YOU THE CASE I CITED, HERE IT IS AGAIN: OIP Opinion

I have now stated I am not interested in your opinion nor the unrelated other 'birther' cases you keep dragging into this.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
To be honest, most of the cases dealing with the matter of Obama's birth certificate, appear to be deliberately sabotaged. For example, the ridiculous case you cited earlier...that someone shares a common ancestor via an 'Adam and Eve' argument.

Not sabotaged, it just shows the lack of intelligence of birthers

That is crap.

Birther arguments certainly are crap!

I don't care about your legal opinion. I am only concerned with the OIP's opinion.

Their opinion, which I posted, is that private records are private.

And I cannot imagine they would be anxious to write an opinion undoing their previous opinion, and setting new precedent that is in clear violation of the Act backed by illogical legal thinking.

Why would they change their opinion that private records are private? The Act states private records are private, why would they want to change that?

there is no sound legal reason to keep it private,

Apart from releasing it to the public would be against the law you mean!

the public's interest outweighs any interest in keeping it private

Wrong again, the public is not interested, only a few rabid Obama haters are interested.

AND the public has a right to verify what they were presented is authentic.

No they do not, actually. As the courts have already stated.

I never cited the cases you are citing

of course you have not, as it totally destroys your claim!

I TOLD YOU THE CASE I CITED,

That case has nothing to do with private Dept. of Health records, despite what you want.

Ted Cruz claims the issue is settled and that he is okay to be President, but the issue has never, ever been settled, and the Supreme Court has actually gone out of their way to ensure that they didn't have to hear about the issue.

Now, a NATIVE is referred to as someone who was specifically born in that country. This has been the definition for Native for centuries.

If I'm a Native Englishman, I was born in England. If I'm referred to as just English, then I'm a citizen, but may or may not have been born there.

NATIVES are often referred to as the "only true Americans" because they were born in North America for millennia.

I think if we extend the term NATIVE to "Natural Born" it is evident that when the founders wrote the Constitution, they wanted to ensure that only someone born INSIDE the United States could be President. This is because, at the time, many Americans were coming from England, and it would have been counter productive to have someone born outside of the country as President of a new nation, especially someone who came from the country that they just separated from. I believe the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that only Americans born in the United States could become President.

In Martin Scorsese's "Gangs of New York", the NATIVES were referred to as being only someone born in the United States, which was the thinking of the 19th century and before.

I think "born in America" vs "American at birth" needs to be defined as far as "Natural Born" is referenced.

I actually don't think it's important that someone should be born in a country to lead that country, just like it's not important that someone who wants to become Governor needs to have been born in that State.

I think so long as a leader is a long term resident and has proven to have the best interests of their country at heart, and has rejected the citizenship of their birth country (One cannot serve two masters), then they should be more than fine to lead anyone they like, if they can convince everyone else to elect them.

Many countries only have a citizenship requirement to be leader (with a length of citizenship requirement) rather than be born in that country.

a reply to: hellobruce

The OIP and courts consider the legal arguments they are asked to consider. The other cases you are pointing to are irrelevant to my legal argument. Are you deliberately pretending to not understand this?

I know you are confident there is just some really, really profound reason the public cannot see a document -- that they have allegedly already seen -- out of respect for Obama's privacy. I know you think that reason is a single law (HRS§338-18).

But the law is more complex than you are grasping. One single law/statute cannot be considered outside of other relevant laws/statutes...and I actually DO understand this.

I understand that Hawaii's open records law (UIPA) mandates Obama's birth certificate be made public IF he has already made it public -- despite the tangible interest statute (HRS§338-18). I also understand the public's interest in verifying what they were presented is authentic outweighs any privacy-interest Obama has in keeping a record private that was already allegedly made public. I have also pointed to a precedent case where the Hawaii OIP agreed with that same legal logic.

There is no reason to berate me or anyone else agreeing with my legal argument because there is nothing unreasonable about it. If you don't like it, fine. But, continually reframing my argument to suit your 'silly' desire to avoid actually confronting the facts I have addressed is not productive. I have no use for it.

If you want debate reasonably, that's fine. Otherwise, forget it.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
I understand that Hawaii's open records law (UIPA) mandates Obama's birth certificate be made public IF he has already made it public p

You understand wrong, as the courts have pointed out. It does not matter what Obama does with his personal records, they still remain private Dept. of Health records.

I also understand the public's interest

What public interest? There is none. Just a few birthers who refuse to accept Obama is the legal POTUS.

avoid actually confronting the facts

you are the one that is avoiding confronting the facts, that private Dept. of Health records are just that. Private.

Why is that fact so hard for you to accept? Private records are PRIVATE!

What do you not understand about this?

HRS ÿÿ 338-18(b) specifically prohibits the DOH from permitting the inspection, or issuing certified copies, of public health statistics records, including birth records, unless "the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record."

One single law/statute cannot be considered outside of other relevant laws/statutes

But there is no law or statute that overrides HRS§338-18, as the court has already pointed out.

originally posted by: hellobruce
You understand wrong, as the courts have pointed out. It does not matter what Obama does with his personal records, they still remain private Dept. of Health records.

No, they haven't for the umpteenth time. The OIP determined the legal argument that Obama's birth certificate should be made public to someone because they shared a common ancestor through Adam & Eve, is absurd. (In fact, it is so absurd, I have to believe it was born from a controlled opposition effort.)

AND, that's not the legal argument I presented to them -- so it's irrelevant. That opinion did not take into consideration the fact that the record had already been made public. Why? Because the OIP was not asked to consider that legal argument.

I have actually presented sound statutory and case support for my argument.

You are deliberately ignoring this point and if you think you are fooling anyone, you are wrong.