Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next   
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Posts: 6226
Location: FEMA Camp Pontchartrain, Tchefuncte River Lighthouse Annex
Occupation: Rhesus monkey litigation trainer
Quote:
Apr 7, 8:50 PM EDT

Hawaii appeals court rejects 'birther' appeal


By AUDREY McAVOY
Associated Press


HONOLULU (AP) -- A Hawaii appeals court has rejected a man's request to "inspect and copy" Honolulu-born President Barack Obama's birth certificate, saying the plaintiff failed to state a valid claim to having access to the document.

Chief Judge Craig Nakamura wrote in an opinion issued Thursday that Robert V. Justice didn't show there were "compelling circumstances" requiring the state Department of Health to show him the birth certificate. Two associate justices of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals concurred, one in a separate opinion.

Hawaii's privacy laws bar the release of birth records unless the requester is someone with a tangible interest, such as a close family member.


More at the link


Butterbunns is not happy. She thinks a Nebraska housewife has a better grasp of Hawaii law than the state appellate court judges. "The standard for disclosure in Hawaii is a “scintilla of interest”. If there is a “scintilla” of public interest in disclosure it outweighs privacy concerns."

_________________
"He is an enemy combatant, and I don't understand why the military hasn't labeled him an enemy combatant and ordered a drone hit on him." - Blogger "butterdezillion" referring to the President of the United States, June 27, 2014


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 27068
From the article BB linked.

Quote:
Justice, who represented himself before the court, said "the health and safety of every American" was at stake in this case because Obama, as president, is responsible for ensuring national security and "the health and safety of the 300 million Americans living on American soil."

But Nakamura wrote the exception exists to allow people access to vital records in medical or safety emergencies.

He noted the federal Privacy Act has a similar provision. He cited a 1974 U.S. Senate committee report on the law saying the exception exists to protect a government employee or agency from violating the law when they have to release personal information about someone to save the person's life. A separate U.S. House committee report from the same year said an airline crash or an epidemic would be examples of valid emergency situations in which an exception would apply.

Nakamura said Justice's desire to verify Obama's eligibility for president doesn't meet this standard. He added Justice failed to "allege any basis for questioning that President Obama is a natural born citizen and that he is eligible to serve as president."


=D> =D> =D>

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


Image x 4 Image x 34


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 25671
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
Sounds like the case Leo Donofrio threatened to bring for a year. And when the attention dried up, he ran off.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)

Realist lives to serve. Foggy does it for the children. I'm in it for the schadenfreude.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 12943
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm
Posts: 4096
Location: Brigadoon
Occupation: Retired
Robert V. Justice? Fer real?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 27068
Quote:
Butterbunns is not happy. She thinks a Nebraska housewife has a better grasp of Hawaii law than the state appellate court judges. "The standard for disclosure in Hawaii is a “scintilla of interest”. If there is a “scintilla” of public interest in disclosure it outweighs privacy concerns."


=)) =))

I'm sure butterbutt cited her authority for the standard being a "scintilla." :roll:

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


Image x 4 Image x 34


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 25671
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
realist wrote:
Quote:
Butterbunns is not happy. She thinks a Nebraska housewife has a better grasp of Hawaii law than the state appellate court judges. "The standard for disclosure in Hawaii is a “scintilla of interest”. If there is a “scintilla” of public interest in disclosure it outweighs privacy concerns."


=)) =))

I'm sure butterbutt cited her authority for the standard being a "scintilla." :roll:

It appears to be 3 bloggers at the newspaper blog toilet Post & Email: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/10/ ... s-records/

There is a lot of April 2010 blather there, so to cut to the chase ALT F "scintilla" and you will see how precedent is made in Birfoonistan. Since 3 bloggers mentioned the phrase -- it's LAW!

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)

Realist lives to serve. Foggy does it for the children. I'm in it for the schadenfreude.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 9396
Location: USA
Occupation: Otherwise occupied
Isn't that the case Andy Martin threatened to file too?

_________________
Reality Check Radio
RC Radio Blog

"The ultimate authority on the validity of a government issued document is the government that issued it." - Foggy, January 29, 2014


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Posts: 6226
Location: FEMA Camp Pontchartrain, Tchefuncte River Lighthouse Annex
Occupation: Rhesus monkey litigation trainer
Nellie is, of course, wrong. She misunderstands law. But what else is new?

Quote:
1. Personal Privacy Exception. An agency should not allow public inspection or duplication of a personnel record which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-13(1) (1993).

2. Balancing Test. To determine whether disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, the UIPA’s balancing test must be applied: if the public interest in disclosure outweighs any privacy interests in a government record, disclosure would not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-14(a) (Supp. 2000).

3. How to Apply the Balancing Test.

a) If an individual’s privacy interest in a personnel record is significant (see examples in F.4. below), it is weighed against the public interest in disclosure:

1) If the privacy interest outweighs the public interest, the information is confidential; and

2) If the public interest outweighs the privacy interest, the information is public.

b) When balancing the privacy rights of an individual against the public interest in disclosure, the public interest to be considered is that which sheds light upon the workings of government. OIP Op. Ltr. No. 93-20 at 7 (Dec. 30, 1993). The OIP reached this conclusion by looking at:

[t]wo basic policies served by the UIPA, which are to “[p]romote the public interest in disclosure” and to “[e]nhance governmental accountability through a general policy of access to government records.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-2 [1993]. Further, in enacting the UIPA, the Legislature declared that “it is the policy of this State that the formation and conduct of public policy--the discussions,

c) If an individual’s privacy interest is not significant,then a “scintilla” of public interest will require the disclosure of the personnel record. S. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 235, 14th Leg., 1988 Reg. Sess., Haw. S.J. 689, 690 (1988); H. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 112-88, Haw. H.J. 817, 818 (1988).

_________________
"He is an enemy combatant, and I don't understand why the military hasn't labeled him an enemy combatant and ordered a drone hit on him." - Blogger "butterdezillion" referring to the President of the United States, June 27, 2014


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:26 pm
Posts: 6226
Location: FEMA Camp Pontchartrain, Tchefuncte River Lighthouse Annex
Occupation: Rhesus monkey litigation trainer
Continued ...


Quote:
4. Significant Privacy Interest; Examples. An individual has a significant privacy interest in the following information or records ... :

* * *

c) Birthdate. See OIP Op. Ltr. No. 90-7 (Feb. 9, 1990).

d) Social security number. See OIP Op. Ltr. No. 90-7 (Feb. 9, 1990).

e) Information relating to medical, psychiatric, or psychological history, diagnosis, condition, treatment, or evaluation (other than directory information while an individual is present at a government facility). Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92F-14(b)(1) (Supp. 2000).


Hawaii's Legislature has determined that an individual has a significant privacy interest in his/her vital records -- including the birth certificate -- that outweighs nearly every conceivable interest that unrelated persons might have, in H.R.S. §338-18.

The above analysis is provided in guidelines for disclosure of personnel records, but the OIP opinions and statutes cited therein have general application. Texas, whose statute also is modeled on the FOIA, has come to the same conclusion that privacy interests outweigh the public's interest when it comes to nondisclosure of birth dates, SSNs, and similar information. See Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts v. Attorney General of Texas and the Dallas Morning News, Ltd..

_________________
"He is an enemy combatant, and I don't understand why the military hasn't labeled him an enemy combatant and ordered a drone hit on him." - Blogger "butterdezillion" referring to the President of the United States, June 27, 2014


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:30 pm
Posts: 2924
Location: The Great Pariah State of Arizona
No cite available yet per Westlaw. But say, is the below case one we're already aware of?



Supreme Court of Hawai‘i. CONSTITUTION PARTY; Alan L. Keyes, Plaintiffs, v. Linda LINGLE in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Hawai‘i; Kevin B. Cronin in his official capa-city as the Chief Election Officer for the State of Hawai‘i; John Does 1-50; Jane Does 1-50; Doe Partnerships 1-50; Doe Corporations 1-50; and Doe Entities 1-50, Defendants.

No. 29473. Dec. 5, 2008.

Original Proceeding.

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA and DUFFY, JJ.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL *1 Upon consideration of the Complaint to Contest the 2008 Presidential Election submitted by Plaintiffs Constitution Party and Alan L. Keyes, the Motion to Dismiss submitted by Defendants Governor Linda L. Lingle and Chief Election Officer Kevin B. Cronin, it appears the Plaintiffs style the complaint as an election contest brought pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §§ 11-172 and 11-174.5, but allege, in pertinent part, that Defendant Cronin failed to require proof that candidate Barack Obama was qualified to be a candidate for Pres-ident of the United States. Any challenge to the Chief Election Officer's finding of eligibility of a presidential candidate in the State of Hawai‘i must be pursued in accordance with HRS § 11-113(e), not sections 11-172 and 11-174.5. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted and this case is dismissed.

Hawai‘i,2008. Constitution Party v. Lingle Not Reported in P.3d, 2008 WL 5125984 (Hawai'i)

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image


"What part of 'second' don't you understand?" -Judge Morrison England


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 2827
Did we know about this one:

Quote:
Appeals court rebuffs man seeking Obama birth certificate

By Star-Advertiser staff

POSTED: 11:02 a.m. HST, Apr 07, 2011

The state appeals court affirmed this morning the denial of a request to inspect and review President Barack Obama's birth certificate.

In a 3-0 vote, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals upheld a 2009 ruling by then-state Circuit Judge Eden Elizabeth Hifo, who dismissed the lawsuit by a man identified as "Dr. Robert V. Justice," who represented himself. He listed a Beverly Hills, Calif., address on his court papers.

In his legal brief to the appeals court, Justice wrote the inspection of the birth certificate will "ensure the health and safety of all 300 million of us by making sure that our military and our nuclear and chemical arsenals are still under our control and not in the control of any one of our enemies."

The appeals court said Justice sought the review under the state open-records law requiring the disclosure of documents based on a showing of "compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual."


http://www.scribd.com/doc/52517375/Just ... Apr-7-2011

_________________
"Let me tell you, I'm a really smart guy."

― Donald Trump


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm
Posts: 13233
Yes. viewtopic.php?f=25&t=5701

_________________
"All this talk about blowjobs makes me want to SUE SOMEBODY"-- Sterngard Friegen (quoting Thomas Jefferson)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:10 pm
Posts: 6628
Location: My business address is in Pennsylvania
Don't jump on me; I'm just playing devil's advocate here...

I saw a comment on another board theorizing that the President has waived the privacy interest in his birth records by publishing them. Since he waived (the argument goes) there is nothing to balance against the "scintilla" of public interest in obtaining them.

Do we know if this argument has been made (and rejected) in Hawaii? I would think that there would be a couple of grounds to reject the argument. 1) Finding that the privacy interests of living persons cannot be waived, 2) finding that the waiver was limited only to the information on the COLB, allowing the state to confirm (yet again) the COLB information, etc.

Anything out there yet on this issue?

_________________
ImageImage
Image
ImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:18 pm
Posts: 2796
Location: Paris, France
Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:
Quote:
Apr 7, 8:50 PM EDT

Hawaii appeals court rejects 'birther' appeal


By AUDREY McAVOY
Associated Press


HONOLULU (AP) -- A Hawaii appeals court has rejected a man's request to "inspect and copy" Honolulu-born President Barack Obama's birth certificate, saying the plaintiff failed to state a valid claim to having access to the document.

Chief Judge Craig Nakamura wrote in an opinion issued Thursday that Robert V. Justice didn't show there were "compelling circumstances" requiring the state Department of Health to show him the birth certificate. Two associate justices of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals concurred, one in a separate opinion.

Hawaii's privacy laws bar the release of birth records unless the requester is someone with a tangible interest, such as a close family member.


More at the link


Butterbunns is not happy. She thinks a Nebraska housewife has a better grasp of Hawaii law than the state appellate court judges. "The standard for disclosure in Hawaii is a “scintilla of interest”. If there is a “scintilla” of public interest in disclosure it outweighs privacy concerns."


Someone should tell Trump so he doesn't need to waster any more money on his Hawaiian investigators.


PS - Especially pretty butterly BB!

_________________
Incorrigible. Please do not incorrige me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:30 pm
Posts: 2924
Location: The Great Pariah State of Arizona
TexasFilly wrote:


I am thoroughly confused.

Whose question were you answering, Filly? Your link is a circular one, so I can't figure out if you were mocking my confusion or not. :D

I had not before seen the Justice v. Fuddy appellate opinion either.

Edit: Westlaw still has no citations. I hate that company. WTF are they paid thousands of dollars for if not to update their database upon publication of new opinions?

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image


"What part of 'second' don't you understand?" -Judge Morrison England


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:30 pm
Posts: 2924
Location: The Great Pariah State of Arizona
raicha wrote:
Don't jump on me; I'm just playing devil's advocate here...

I saw a comment on another board theorizing that the President has waived the privacy interest in his birth records by publishing them. Since he waived (the argument goes) there is nothing to balance against the "scintilla" of public interest in obtaining them.

Do we know if this argument has been made (and rejected) in Hawaii? I would think that there would be a couple of grounds to reject the argument. 1) Finding that the privacy interests of living persons cannot be waived, 2) finding that the waiver was limited only to the information on the COLB, allowing the state to confirm (yet again) the COLB information, etc.

Anything out there yet on this issue?


The explanation in Justice v. Fuddy [reporter citation unavailable because Westlaw sucks donkey balls] of the statutory scheme that renders vital records confidential is a pretty good one as to why this argument is meritless. The privacy interest isn't being enforced by Barack Obama. The controlling statute, HRS § 338-18, requires the DOH as a matter of Hawaii law to refuse to provide records to anyone who does not have a "direct and tangible interest" in the specific vital records maintained by the DOH. Those who fail to make a showing of a direct and tangible interest are simply not entitled to see the records. "Waiver" is not contemplated in any portion of the statute, because the person whose records are requested is not the owner of the records. The DOH is. There was nothing for Obama to waive. Once he personally obtained his birth certificate, he was free to do whatever he wants with it, including showing it to the media and sticking it online. That's true for all of us.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image


"What part of 'second' don't you understand?" -Judge Morrison England


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm
Posts: 4096
Location: Brigadoon
Occupation: Retired
There seems to be a Robert V. Justice, a dentist, in the LA area. I cannot find anything interesting on him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:55 pm
Posts: 2827
poutine wrote:
TexasFilly wrote:


I am thoroughly confused.

Whose question were you answering, Filly? Your link is a circular one, so I can't figure out if you were mocking my confusion or not. :D

She was answering me. It looks circular because the threads were merged.

_________________
"Let me tell you, I'm a really smart guy."

― Donald Trump


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:01 am
Posts: 24853
Location: Planet Earth (most the time)
Occupation: I'm not at liberty to say.
Justice v Fuddy, No 30176 (HAWICA Apr 7 2011)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52517375/Just ... Apr-7-2011

_________________
Yes We Can! ~ Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 12943
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
poutine wrote:
No cite available yet per Westlaw. But say, is the below case one we're already aware of?


Supreme Court of Hawai‘i. CONSTITUTION PARTY; Alan L. Keyes, Plaintiffs, v. Linda LINGLE in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Hawai‘i

On the Birther Score Card, yes (page 5).

* * *

Justice v. Fuddy* is also on Hawaii's court's site. (Odd that it still isn't on Westlaw.)


* Fuddy is current director of the Hawaii Department of Health, says the court.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 12943
Location: Supreme Court of clerks
Occupation: Petite treason procurer
Justice v. Fuddy wrote:
Plaintiff's reason for seeking disclosure of President Obama's birth records does not state an "overpowering" or urgent need for the records to save the life or protect the safety of an individual in a medical or safety emergency. Under the United States Constitution, the power to remove a sitting President resides in Congress. [highlight]Barnett v. Obama[/highlight], No. 09-0082, 2009 WL 3861788, at *15-*16 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009). Plaintiff's asserted need to inspect President Obama's birth records is diminished by the fact that Plaintiff does not have the power or authority to determine President Obama's eligibility to serve as President. Moreover, Plaintiff's complaint did not allege any basis for questioning that President Obama is a natural born citizen and that he is eligible to serve as President. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief based on HRS [secs.] 92F-12(b)(3).

\:D/ \:D/ \:D/

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image Image

ASSUME ANYTHING WRITTEN HERE WILL END UP ON TAITZ'S SITE AND FACEBOOK. AND JEROME CORSI WILL POST SCREENSHOTS TO WND. AND WILL BE FILED BY A BIRTHER AS AN EXHIBIT IN FEDERAL COURT. NOW HAVE FUN!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:30 pm
Posts: 2924
Location: The Great Pariah State of Arizona
bob wrote:
Justice v. Fuddy wrote:
Plaintiff's reason for seeking disclosure of President Obama's birth records does not state an "overpowering" or urgent need for the records to save the life or protect the safety of an individual in a medical or safety emergency. Under the United States Constitution, the power to remove a sitting President resides in Congress. Barnett v. Obama, No. 09-0082, 2009 WL 3861788, at *15-*16 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009). Plaintiff's asserted need to inspect President Obama's birth records is diminished by the fact that Plaintiff does not have the power or authority to determine President Obama's eligibility to serve as President. Moreover, [highlight]Plaintiff's complaint did not allege any basis for questioning that President Obama is a natural born citizen and that he is eligible to serve as President.[/highlight] Under these circumstances, we conclude that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief based on HRS [secs.] 92F-12(b)(3).



This dicta is another clear message by an appellate court in America that rejects the birther argument on its merits. Hawaii has joined Indiana.

_________________
Image Image Image Image Image


"What part of 'second' don't you understand?" -Judge Morrison England


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm
Posts: 10413
raicha wrote:
Don't jump on me; I'm just playing devil's advocate here...

I saw a comment on another board theorizing that the President has waived the privacy interest in his birth records by publishing them. Since he waived (the argument goes) there is nothing to balance against the "scintilla" of public interest in obtaining them.

Do we know if this argument has been made (and rejected) in Hawaii? I would think that there would be a couple of grounds to reject the argument. 1) Finding that the privacy interests of living persons cannot be waived, 2) finding that the waiver was limited only to the information on the COLB, allowing the state to confirm (yet again) the COLB information, etc.

Anything out there yet on this issue?


I can think of numerous arguments that support what you say, but I have literally not merely zero interest but negative interest in actually articulating them. I think the birfers should have to cough up money to pursue any BS arguments they have, and that we shouldn't give them for free. This Hawaii BS is an area where they should have to spend lots of money to discover that they're completely wrong. Why give them freebies?

_________________
"I no doubt deserved my enemies but I don't believe I deserved my friends." -- Walt Whitman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:47 pm
Posts: 4181
Location: USA
Occupation: Cat petter, RN with license voluntarily inactive, just like Michelle Obama's law license.
raicha wrote:
the President has waived the privacy interest in his birth records by publishing them

He did not publish his birth records.

He published the very limited info listed on the COLB.

_________________
Why is it easier to be a conservative than a liberal?
Because it’s much easier to give people the finger...
than to offer a helping hand. -Mike Royko


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
View new posts | View active topics



Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group