It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 18
6
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
That opinion did not take into consideration the fact that the record had already been made public.


Still wrong, private government records are just that. Private. As stated.What Obama does with a copy of them does not change the fact that they are still private records.


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


No you have not actually, just more birther crap.

You are deliberately ignoring the fact that private records are just that, private. If you think you are fooling anyone, you are wrong.




posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

You are not fooling anyone with this. No. One.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: hellobruce

You are not fooling anyone with this. No. One.


But the fact is I am not the one trying to fool people with made up birther crap, I am just posting links to court cases etc. that show all birthers have is made up crap!

200+ failed birther court cases are not wrong!



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



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.


This is the operative sentence from the case you linked to as your 'precedent':



This office has consistently advised agencies that they must disclose those records or portions thereof for which there is no statutory basis to withhold disclosure.


I have placed the part you are willfully choosing to ignore in bold.

Your case found that there is no Hawai'ian Statute to keep employee contracts private - they are held confidential on good administrative human resources grounds - but their disclosure is not forbidden by State law.

Vital Statistics are, however, PROTECTED BY STATE LAW. State law defines, very specifically, to whom those records can be disclosed. There is very definitely a "statutory basis to withhold disclosure".

That is the difference between your supposed 'precedent' and the reality of what you are asking for.

Your citation simply DOES NOT APPLY to vital statistics.

edit on 22/1/2016 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa

This is the operative sentence from the case you linked to as your 'precedent':



This office has consistently advised agencies that they must disclose those records or portions thereof for which there is no statutory basis to withhold disclosure.


I have placed the part you are willfully choosing to ignore in bold.

Your case found that there is no Hawai'ian Statute to keep employee contracts private - they are held confidential on good administrative human resources grounds - but their disclosure is not forbidden by State law.

Vital Statistics are, however, PROTECTED BY STATE LAW. State law defines, very specifically, to whom those records can be disclosed. There is very definitely a "statutory basis to withhold disclosure".

That is the difference between your supposed 'precedent' and the reality of what you are asking for.

Your citation simply DOES NOT APPLY to vital statistics.


No.

This is the first statute that was overruled by the fact that the contract terms had already been disclosed:



"Hawaii Revised Statute(HRS) §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;"

This is the SECOND statute that was overruled in favor of disclosure:


"Section 92F-13(3), HRS, is the second exception to disclosure which is applicable to this opinion. This section allows an agency to withhold a record “in order for the government to avoid the frustration of a legitimate government function[.]” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-13(3)."


AND THIS was the OIP's conclusion:


"CONCLUSION
We find that there is no reasonable basis to withhold those portions of the contract which have been disclosed by UH or Coach Jones, through his agent. We also find that the public’s interest in the contract outweighs Coach Jones’ privacy interest and that, based upon the information provided to us by UH, disclosure of the contract will not reasonably frustrate the Athletic Department’s ability to operate. For those reasons, the contract, in its entirety, should be disclosed."


You cherry-picked a sentence that was completely out of context, and ignored the actual context and legal citations discussed. The above in quotations are actually the privacy statutes discussed.

Statutes…not human resource policy.

HRS stands for "HAWAII REVISED STATUTES."

How you concluded the OIP were opining on the University of Hawaii's INTERNAL POLICY I do not understand. The OIP oversees the application of disclosure STATUTES.
edit on 22-1-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa

This office has consistently advised agencies that they must disclose those records or portions thereof for which there is no statutory basis to withhold disclosure.




LOL!! Now I see what tripped you up, you were confusing the statutory test -- that the UIPA is based on -- for the actual discussion for the case.

THE TEST is this:

..agencies...must disclose those records or portions thereof for which there is no statutory basis to withhold disclosure.


So, no. You honestly haven't even begun to grasp the legal discussion that ensued. What you quoted is merely the test, and the test was overcome because the TWO STATUTES that protected the document from disclosure (HRS §92F-13(1) and §92F-13(3) were overruled by the UIPA statute that mandates the contract had to be disclosed because the terms had already been made public.

Yeah...I'm sorry but you obviously didn't read thoroughly.

Nice try though...at least you clicked the opinion. I'm sure that's more than bruce did.
edit on 22-1-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
HRS stands for "HAWAII REVISED STATUTES."


So let us look at §338-18

www.capitol.hawaii.gov...


Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health. (b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:


As you are not one of the people to have "a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record"

Obama's records remain private, and you do not get to see them.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

This office has consistently advised agencies that they must disclose those records or portions thereof for which there is no statutory basis to withhold disclosure.


You forget that there IS a statutory basis to withhold private records. You really have no clue at all.
edit on 22-1-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
HRS stands for "HAWAII REVISED STATUTES."


So let us look at §338-18


And let us look at just one of several UIPA statutes that override that:

From the UIPA statutes:


HRS §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…for the purpose of making information available to the general public


Obama "collected" his birth certificate for the sole purpose of making it available to the public. And it is now 'allegedly' public.

And in case you are unclear as to what 'notwithstanding' means:

notwithstanding
: without being prevented by (something)


In other words…despite HRS 338-18 and the 'tangible interest' test…the UIPA provision statute is the controlling law.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

This office has consistently advised agencies that they must disclose those records or portions thereof for which there is no statutory basis to withhold disclosure.


You forget that there IS a statutory basis to withhold private records. You really have no clue at all.


No, I don't. I just realize there are ALSO disclosure provisions that OVERRIDE HRS338-18. See my previous comment for the specific one.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

HRS §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…for the purpose of making information available to the general public


Obama "collected" his birth certificate for the sole purpose of making it available to the public. And it is now 'allegedly' public.


You are still wrong, the " (15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;" refers to information collected by Hawaii. Private records, like Obama's BC are NOT collected to be made public!


In other words…despite HRS 338-18 and the 'tangible interest' test…the UIPA provision statute is the controlling law.


As the Hawaii Dept of Health do not collect birth records " (15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;" private records are still private and HRS §92F-12 does not apply to private records.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

HRS §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…for the purpose of making information available to the general public


Obama "collected" his birth certificate for the sole purpose of making it available to the public. And it is now 'allegedly' public.


You are still wrong, the " (15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;" refers to information collected by Hawaii. Private records, like Obama's BC are NOT collected to be made public!



No, it doesn't. And in the case of Coach Jones, his handlers collected the info (much like Obama) for the media and that was sufficient to satisfy the requirement.

Obama allegedly collected his BC to satisfy the "media's requests." ---(Obama's words, not mine.)

Look up the legislative discussion of that statute and you will find that I am correct.




edit on 22-1-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
No, it doesn't. And in the case of Coach Jones, his handlers collected the info (much like Obama) for the media and that was sufficient to satisfy the requirement.


Except for the fact that §92F-12 applies to GOVERNMENT records...


Look up the legislative discussion of that statute and you will find that I am correct.


No, you are not correct, private records are private, as you have been shown several times here before!


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”) § 338–18(b). -



While it is true that HRS § 92F–11 establishes the general rule that the UIPA favors affirmative agency-disclosure responsibilities, HRS § 92F–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. -

edit on 22-1-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
No, it doesn't. And in the case of Coach Jones, his handlers collected the info (much like Obama) for the media and that was sufficient to satisfy the requirement.


Except for the fact that §92F-12 applies to GOVERNMENT records...



AND The University of Hawaii is a state operated college.

So...uhm...d'uh...the OIP wouldn't have even heard the case if they weren't a government entity...

...just like they DO NOT decide records disclosure cases involving the public and Walmart.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
...just like they DO NOT decide records disclosure cases involving the public and Walmart.


Nor do you decide that Government private records should be released, the law states that they remain private, with some exceptions that you do not qualify for!



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

That's just your opinion...which is worthless because you never presented your case to the OIP and have no grounds to.

I have. And I'm awaiting their official and legal opinion -- no matter how 'backlogged' they claim to be. I actually have a legal right to an opinion FROM THEM. You don't. At least I put my opinion to the test and the results of that test remain to be seen.

You just stepped into a discussion that you are clearly ill-equipped for and threw your 'silly' opinion around.



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
That's just your opinion


Still wrong, it is the opinion of the courts, as you have been shown, not my opinion.


You just stepped into a discussion that you are clearly ill-equipped


That would be you, refusing to accept reality, that as the court has stated, private records are just that. Private, and you do not get to see them all because you want to!
edit on 22-1-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Mkay, if you want to live in delusions of grandeur where you believe the Courts have heard and decided all your opinions -- no matter how many times you've been shown to be confused -- then I am not going to argue anymore lest you become more unhinged.

Have a good evening.


ETA: I am just going to close with this quote from the Hawaii OIP:


Yes. Certain information about the contract has been disclosed by UH and Coach Jones and has been reported by the media. We believe that there is no reasonable basis to withhold those portions of the contract containing information that has previously been made public. We also find that, because of the public nature of his position and the fact that he is one of the, if not the, highest paid State employees, Coach Jones’ privacy interests relating to the contract are outweighed by the public’s right to know.

Link



edit on 22-1-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
if you want to live in delusions of grandeur


That would be you actually, thinking you can get to see private government records just because you want to then bring down President Obama!



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Gotta say I'm disappointed to see that our resident "community disorganizer" has managed to so completely hijack the intent of the OP...

My reason for stopping by this thread was to ask this question since it seemed applicable:

If Ted Cruz faces possible Democrat challenges to his eligibility, how can Marco Rubio possibly even have made it this far? Regardless of being born within the borders of the United States, he was around 4 years old at the time his parents finally became naturalized citizens. That fact doesn't mean anything negative about any of the Rubios. It DOES, however, make me question how anyone could possibly say he meets the requirement of being a Natural Born Citizen.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join