Leo Donofrio, who brought one of the first legal challenges to Obama's eligibility to be president and unsuccessfully tried to get the U.S.
Supreme Court
to get involved at the time of the election, is reporting on his website that Hawaiian state law requires "information collected and maintained for
the purpose of making information available to the general public" be released.
www.wnd.com...
Strongly recommend readers view this link, and read all the follow up comments, which raise as many good questions, and get as many good answers from
Leo, as the story itself:
naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com...
But in a nutshell:
Correspondence sent to TerriK by Hawaii officials indicates that President Obama’s vital records have been amended and official records
pertaining thereto are maintained by the state of Hawaii.
and:
Hawaii has been caught blatantly circumventing their own laws; laws specifically created to foster open government practices.
and critically that:
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.
So basically, TerriK is being denied the information which backs the basis by which a public statement was made. And which by Hawaii's own laws are
REQUIRED to be released to the public.
Another important point is also raised in that blog: Obama relinquished any claim to personal privacy of his BC with the release of his short form BC
to factcheck.org. So the obvious question still remains. And that point clearly refutes this:
Department spokesman Janice Okubo told WND the laws have been interpreted to leave birth documentation exempted from public disclosure.
At the core of this particular case is this:
Under the state's law addressing records. exceptions are made for government records that would "constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy." Also exempted are various records regarding prosecutions and certain court papers.
But it explains that disclosure "shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal private if the public interest in disclosure
outweighs the privacy interests of the individual."
Now considering in this case that Obama's very Presidency is riding on this, and that every single US citizen has a right to expect that their
President is indeed legitimate, I cannot see how in the world one could argue that Obama's personal interest outweighs the public's right to know.
A full release of all of TerriK's communications with the two Hawaii offices is forthcoming from Leo, and is to be on his blog in the next few days.
Interesting situation, for sure. And note: Leo is providing the attorney services to TerriK PRO BONO (Free).
