Constitutionally Speaking

I trust Leo knows exactly where he is going with this UIPA Investigation and this newest report brings more government deceit, clues and questions. The most compelling question in my mind right now is:

“Will Hawaii comply with its own open government laws?”

Click on the photo for the entire report:

The UIPA at 92F-3 explicitly defines “government records” as follows:

“Government record” means information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical form.

When a state agency in Hawaii is faced with a request for government records, the Office of Information Practices Administrative Rules govern all responses to such a request.  State agencies may not issue a response which doesn’t conform to the OIP Administrative Rules.

Agencies must answer every request for government records within the four following types of response:

1.  the agency has the record and will provide it to you

2. the agency does not maintain/possess the record

3.  the agency has the record but you are denied access to it

4. the agency needs more information from you to understand your request

These are examples of the four basic responses available to a state agency.  For example, an agency may not tell a person that the agency refuses to say whether they possess a certain record.

This very issue was discussed  in OIP Opinion Letter 97-08, wherein a staff attorney for the Corporation Counsel was faced with a UIPA request concerning a legal memo.  The staff attorney refused to acknowledge whether the legal memo existed by citing attorney client privilege.

The requestor appealed to the OIP and the staff attorney was then required to submit to an investigation by the OIP into whether the memo existed.  The staff attorney had to cooperate with the OIP investigator.  He admitted that the memo did not exist and the requestor was informed of that fact.

When an agency “denies” access to a government record, the denial has a very explicit effect in that it operates as a statutory admission by the agency that they do maintain (possess) the requested record.

An agency can only deny access to a record it does actually maintain.

If the agency does not have the record, then the agency must notify the requestor that the record is not maintained by the agency.

TerriK’s UIPA REQUESTS

TerriK assumed that President Obama had amended his vital records and simply asked for the amended records and all applications by Obama to amend or correct his vital records.  TerriK also requested all records of fees paid by Obama to amend the records.

The DoH was required to answer TerriK’s UIPA requests within one of the four responses discussed above.  And they never responded thereto by alleging that the amendment records she requested were not maintained by the DoH.

Instead, the DoH responded by denying TerriK access to the requested records citing the privacy protections of Haw. Rev. Stat. 338-18(b).

Obviously, there is no privacy right to a record which does not exist.

The DoH has therefore admitted that they maintain amended birth records for President Obama.

Permit me to address Senator Johnson’s letter one more time in detail. Let’s take it line by line.

First of all, Sen. Johnson thanks me for contacting him regarding Internet rumors.

“Thank you for contacting me regarding Internet rumors. I appreciate hearing from you.”

Could he have been any more condescending? Here is the openning of all my previously written correspondence on this subject after my initial letter right after the election in Nov:

RE: Confirmation of 2008 Presidential Electoral College Votes

Dear XXX

            I can not begin to say how Senator Johnson’s response to my previous letter pertaining to this year’s election has me even more concerned and I now know personally why the general public for the 1^st time in American History has given our elected officials in Congress the lowest approval rating ever. It is because of the lack of respect for the following oath that all of you have taken that leads us to begin work to explore our options under the Constitution to turn this country around and get it back to a truly Free Constitutional Republic and away from the Socialist Democracy path you all have been taking us. 

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” 

Obviously, this oath is just words, as according to Senator Johnson’s letter & others I have received in the past from all of you, you really have not read the Constitution for a very long time and thus have forgotten what responsibilities & restrictions it places on you to protect and defend the Constitution and We the People whom you are obligated to serve honorably, responsibly and lawfully without reservation. Please allow me a bit of your time to reply to Senator Johnson’s letter and correct some most important Constitutional Laws that seem to have mistakenly been brushed off as internet rumors as most Elected Officials have done nationwide to their constituents this election year.

The 1^stthing I will take issue with is your perception of the role of the internet. I do agree that it can be a vast source of misinformation, but if used properly & responsiblyas I did and verified sources beyond the internet for credibility, the internet can be a vast source of good. Obviously Sen. Johnson or his staff just read my letter and saw the references and neither he nor his staff took the time to verify as I did. If they had, they would not have had the audacity to spurn my use of the internet, yet they themselves have relied on 2 internet sources for their facts instead of the Constitution, US laws and legal government documents as I have. Also, their reference to reputable sources is in itself an oxymoron when you consider that fact that those sources have deep ties to the candidates, especially Barack Obama.

1995 Ayers makes Obama Chairman of Annenberg Challenge

Johnson’s letter goes on to say:

“While accurate information is often made available to those willing to look for the truth, it is often true that factual information does not spread through cyberspace nearly as quickly as the scurrilous damaging misinformation that fuels public anger or outrage.”

Here I adamently disagree. Yes, damaging factual information does spread like wild fire on the Internet thus fueling public anger and outrage and for GOOD reason. “We the People” are tired of government cover-up of government corruption! Especially when elected officials uses sources connected to the most dishonest, lying radical president of all time instead of historical documentation from past congresses and supreme court rulings to make his interpretations of the Rule of Law. Is it too late for him to get his money back for his law education?(out of line and overly sarcastic)

Next we come to my call to his office that spurred this particualr correspondence from Sen Johnson’s office. In his reply he states:

“Based on the comments you made to my office, you have apparently come across some Internet rumors suggesting President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.”

So, my comments regarding the fact the Obama was British at birth due to the fact that his father was a foreigner, and, how can a United States natural born citizen’s citizenship status be governed by the British Crown at birth; automatically meant that I was referring to a birth off of US soil? They must have not had their listening ears on that day. I guess I also should have refaxed my original reply from Dec ’08 when asking for an investigation before confirming the votes of the electoral college:

2^.I never claimed in my letter that Barack Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii and I am insulted that a Senator would put words in my mouth and make assumptions based on what is obviously their opinion, not mine. The Constitution is very clear as to the qualifications for POTUS, and there is no birth certificate of Barack Obama that would make any difference. The fact that he had dual citizenship at birth proves he was not a “Natural Born” citizen. He is a citizen under the 14^th amendment which defines citizens born to parents when one parent is not a US citizen.

So let’s continue with this bit of misinformation in Sen. Johnson’s letter:

“Such rumors overlook the fact that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States regardless of the location of his birth. President Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States, and children of American citizens are conferred citizenship at birth, meaning Barack Obama was born a citizen of this country. The same is true for Senator McCain, whose birth in the Panma Canal Zone has led to similar, equally false allegations of ineligibility.”

This is it, just a statement, no legal or historical references but I do have a few for him. Under current 7FAM of the foreign affairs manual it clearly states:  http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/c22712.htm

Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual at 7FAM1116.1-4(c) 

“Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”

and the current foreign affairs manual also states this:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency. 

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible for the Office of President,”

c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”.

The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat.103,104) provided that, “…the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born … out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes.

 So, this debunks Sen Johnson & his staff’s interpretation of McCain (Alinsky tactic, change the subject, throw the reader off topic to lead them away from the real truth, the real crime), but let’s get back to Obama.

Disreagarding my actual question and imposing the typical political rhetorical answer that all have been getting out of DC, Senator Johnson says that since Obama’s mother was a US citizen, it matters not where on the globe Obama was born. WRONG AGAIN! At the time of his birth, Obama’s mother was not old enough to confer her American citizenship to her newborn son had he been born abroad. We again refer to the foreign affairs manual in:

7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301

Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.

The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised this law to accommodate “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.(this correction, however, was not retroactive to the time Obama was born)

Thus, Sen. Johnson continues by saying:

“It should be noted that President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii and has released the birth certificate issued by that state.”

Oh, really? And where is the proof of that? This is what we have been told:

In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama’s short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org.

Janice Okubu, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Chiyome Fukino’s initial press release last October and subsequent press release last week also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents.

In June 2008, Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, released the initial short-form Obama COLB to various newspapers including the Los Angeles Times declaring, “This is Sen. Obama’s birth certificate.”

This short-form Obama COLB was released as a .jpg Internet image, displaying no signs of having been folded or of carrying an official State of Hawaii embossed seal.

If Senator Johnson has a published statement from Hawaii to the contrary, it should be released immediately! This would end the birth certificate cover-up that Obama is using to cover-up the real fraud, his British citizenship at birth, just as Chester Arthur used in 1880 when he sent Hinman on a wild goose chase. Also, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with race, it is about National Security.

Finally, Senator Johnson goes on to refer to a Supreme Court case. He does not specify which one, he only states one was turned down. Well, we all know there were several and they are not completely dead. They were left in a state that would allow for further action should the plaintiff’s wish to pursue them. This is hardly case dismissed as Senator Johnson would have you believe, but is his lawyer legalese trying to cover-up his political indiscretions.

Thus, you now have concrete, substantiated evidence that Sen. Johnson, nor his office staff have any regard as to the law; let alone taking the time to actually refer to it before responding to a constituent’s constitutional questions addressed to them for clarification and asking them to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Here is the conclusion to the 30 page rebutle of the very 1st reply I got from Senator Johnson in regards to the fraudualnt election of 2008.

I have laid out your duties as written in the Constitution so there is no mistake what they actually are. It is your duty under that oath of office that you took to make sure WE THE PEOPLE have a fully qualified President & Vice President and our military have a qualified Commander in Chief.

 I have presented you with irrefutable evidence based on reputable sources and US & State Government documents & laws. I have given you more than enough credible evidence that should leave you with great pause to stand firm and order that a Congressional Committee be formed to investigate Barack Obama, John McCain and the Democratic & Republican Committee Chairman for their crimes they have committed in causing this election to fall into such an unconstitutional state that it could forever do irreparable harm to our country and it’s people faith in their elected officials. The election needs to be returned to a Constitutional State and returned to the People for justice to be done and we will not rest until it is done and those responsible are held accountable for their crimes against the Constitution.

It is a sad day when “We the People” whom you have sworn to serve honorably have such little trust that we have to go to such lengths to help you do your duties which you should know. It should be the duty of each elected official to know the Constitution and their responsibilities and restrictions are under it. I will save the restrictions for another time, but rest assured, it will not be long before you here from me in great length again, as I now know I have to spell everything out in detail as not to leave it for you to assume my requests. Nor will I ever assume you are doing your job and verifying my reputable resources that confirm the facts I present to you in my letters.

Respectfully,

This 30^th day of December, 2008

 So, in January, both the US Senate and the House of Representatives certified illegal election results and allowed a Usurper to enter the White House. All for their personal political gains which will, in the end, become the final nails in the coffins of their political careers and any remaining respect their constituents may hold for them.

 “Thanks again for contacting me, and please keep in touch! Sincerely, Tim Johnson (TPJ/kcr)”

You can bet your political hyde I will keep in contact! We will NOT be silenced!