BREAKING!!!!! Important: Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended.

Posted on September 22nd, 2009
Leo Donofrio published

I will be assisting one of my readers in filing litigation in Hawaii state circuit court pursuant to her ongoing request for public information denied by Hawaii officials. (Readers of my blog will recognize her as MissTickly aka TerriK.)

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.

I will issue a full statement and press release on behalf of TerriK via this blog in the days ahead. This statement will include a complete history of correspondence between TerriK and Hawaii state officials in the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and the Department of Health (DoH).

Any legal assistance provided by me to TerriK will be pro bono. I will seek to be admitted pro hac vice in Hawaii for purposes of filing the case and conducting the trial. If such admission is not forthcoming, other counsel may be retained or TerriK may represent herself pro se. In any case, I will be drafting the pleadings. The only issue will be related to who files them and conducts the trial de novo.


While correspondence sent to TerriK confirms that President Obama’s vital records have been amended, the DoH has refused to make the documents requested available. One count of the litigation will attempt to have those documents released. The other counts concern various information denied to her which – according to Hawaii law – she is entitled to.

Before I get to the facts of the ongoing investigation in my follow up report, I will ask readers to study the UIPA manual and the UIPA statute.

Hawaii has been caught blatantly circumventing their own laws; laws specifically created to foster open government practices.

STANDING

TerriK has standing to pursue this action under the statute. The UIPA manual states:

“Any person” may make a request for government records under part II, the Freedom of Information section of the UIPA. “Person” is defined broadly to include an individual, government agencies, partnerships and any other legal entities.

Under part II, a government agency generally may not limit access to public records based on who the requester is or the proposed use of the record.

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.