Skip to comments.Hawaii UIIPA Information Request Made, Media & Freepers Alerted
Posted on 07/30/2009 10:26:57 AM PDT by MissTickly
click here to read article
AND WAR IT IS... BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG!!!
Good Luck MissTickly. As a (hopefully) former Lib you are about to be given a lesson in what liberalism really means in practice.
Godspeed MissTickly and may He richly bless you!
Prayers and fingers crossed at least SOMETHING will come of this effort!
I saw, earlier today on FR, that Lolo Soetoro may have had a third name that was used as a surname. You may have to submit a requesy for Barry/Barack Soetoro-”Mxxxx”.
Sorry. No time to research for you. Contact pissant?
Thank you everyone, here’s hoping!
Thanks. Belated WELCOME ABOARD!
No offense and I wish you well on your effort, but this issue seems to be gaining no ground and may have a negative impact on TOTUS’ “detractors”. The state-run media is completely in the tank, in general, and on this specific issue, even more brooms.
But, I guess the biggest question is the Director:
Why the HELL should we give a crap if you have *seen* the birth certificate?
Why not just make a copy available to the public (or at least public viewing)?
And, why is it that the media has LITERALLY spent years and literally millions trying to unseal government records of public events that everyone saw?
I mean how may state-run media reporters have been “on the beat” just to uncover some truly inconsequential “factoid” to prove that Dick Cheney’s whereabouts where unknown for 5 minutes during the morning of 9-11 (or some other conspiracy theory).
Why is it that the media members can’t ask/demand the Director of Health/Vital Statistics: thanks for your comments, honey, but let’s go ahead and see the original (or facsimile thereof)?
I don’t care if you are a lifelong democrat and plan to remain a lifelong democrat as long as somebody gets the records.
I think they will pull this on you:
(1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
But certainly, you should at least be able to get the name of the law that Fukino used to come to her legal conclusion about the natural born status.
Has anyone got the marriage license for BHO to see if there is any interesting info on it. Illinois does release it.
has anybody seen and heard about Obama’s executive order issued on January 21, 2009
You can read it here! This is really getting smelly as I had not seen this until today.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 21, 2009
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489
- - - - - - -
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) “Archivist” refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.
(b) “NARA” refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.
(c) “Presidential Records Act” refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.
(d) “NARA regulations” refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.
(e) “Presidential records” refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.
(f) “Former President” refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.
(g) A “substantial question of executive privilege” exists if NARA’s disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.
(h) A “final court order” is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.
Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records. (a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
(b) Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.
Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President. (a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.
(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.
(c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.
(d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.
Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President. (a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist’s determination as to whether to honor the former President’s claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist’s determination with respect to the former President’s claim of privilege.
(b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 21, 2009.
Nope, because I used their words from the OCT 2008 statement they issued so i know they have the statutory authority to answer.
I’ve posted what came before all this last night and the night before. Those posts explain everything.
I have emailed hannity, beck, greta & lou dobbs and copied Ms. Okubo like 10 times today.
Would someone else be willing to use my request to send one with this new last name?
“Letters of Verification
Letters of verification may be issued in lieu of certified copies (HRS §338-14.3). This document verifies the existence of a birth/death/marriage/divorce certificate on file with the Department of Health and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event. (For example, that a certain named individual was born on a certain date at a certain place.) The verification process will not, however, disclose information about the vital event contained within the certificate that is unknown to and not provided by the applicant in the request.
Letters of verification are requested in similar fashion and using the same request forms as for certified copies.
The fee for a letter of verification is $5 per letter.”
“ [§338-14.3] Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
(d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.
(e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1]”
In HRS 338-0018 ********Important info here***************
“ (g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is: . . .
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]”
See that last section. Are you affiliated with any group, club, or anything where you could credibly seek the info to write an educational or research paper? Do you know a student who might be willing to lend their name to this and could have their school vouch for them in some way? Of course, I suppose that you could form your own “social organization”. Good looking letterhead is cheap.
I looked over that recent executive order a few months ago, and it was something that was a continuation of Bushs former executive order as a lot of the wording was the same.
But, I also see that Obamas Executive Order 13489 *restores* Ronald Reagans Executive Order 12667
Executive Order 12667 established a procedure for former United States Presidents to limit access to certain records which would otherwise have been released by the National Archives and Records Administration under the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It was issued by President Ronald Reagan on 18 January 1989.
The Executive Order was superseded by Executive Order 13233 on 1 November 2001, which allows former Presidents to have greater control over which records are released by the NARA. President George W. Bushs Executive Order 13233 was then revoked by President Barack Obama on January 21, 2009, his first day in office, who essentially restored the provisions of Order 12667 in his new Order.
Executive Order 12667
Executive Order 13233
Executive Order 13489
It appears that people should be thanking Obama for restoring President Ronald Reagans Executive Order in doing this... :-)
You all did a great job last night in coming up with all the right questions to ask!
I wonder what the response will be...
Obama essentially restored the wording of Executive Order 12667, by repeating most of the text of that order with minor changes. One notable change is that vice presidential records are explicitly covered by his new order.My read on the above is that wiki is wrong. Actually the new EO EXCLUDES vp and former vp records from protection. The devil is in the details. President Bush's EO revoked the President Reagan EO and Mr. Obama revoked President Bush's EO:
Sec. 11. Vice Presidential Records.
(a) Pursuant to section 2207 of title 44 of the United States Code, the Presidential Records Act applies to the executive records of the Vice President. Subject to subsections (b) and (c), this order shall also apply with respect to any such records that are subject to any constitutionally based privilege that the former Vice President may be entitled to invoke, but in the administration of this order with respect to such records, references in this order to a former President shall be deemed also to be references to the relevant former Vice President.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not be deemed to authorize a Vice President or former Vice President to invoke any constitutional privilege of a President or former President except as authorized by that President or former President.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant, limit, or otherwise affect any privilege of a President, Vice President, former President, or former Vice President.
Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked. THE WHITE HOUSE, January 21, 2009Section1: Both (c) and (d) are changed. Have not research yet the significance of the CFRs as well as the other "minor" changes. All legal foks out there agree/disagree with my read?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.