STUNNING ADMISSION MADE BY DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
by John Charlton
(Oct. 8, 2009) — The Post & Email has just received moments ago, the response sent by Hawaii Deputy Attorney General Jill T. Nagamine, denying that the AG office has ever mentioned the term “natural born citizen” in an opinion or policy.
The concerned citizen had made the following request, using the online interface at the HI Attorney General’s office:
Subject: 92F-12 Information Request
Questions/Comments: I am writing to request some information in accord with Hawaii Rev. Statutes §92F-12
§92F-12 Disclosure required. (a) Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:
(1) Rules of procedure, substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy, and interpretations of general applicability adopted by the agency;
(2) Final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders made in the adjudication of cases, except to the extent protected by section 92F-13(1);
In particular I am requesting
1) Final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders made in the adjudication of cases, except to the extent protected by section 92F-13(1), which contain any mention of “natural born citizen” issued by your department in the last 10 years.
2) Rules of procedure, substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy, and interpretations of general applicability adopted by your agency, which regard determining the legal definition of, or any determination of, any type of citizenship status, such as natural born citizen, native born citizen, naturalized citizen, statutory citizen, dual citizen, as may be required or requested in the normal or extraordinary or special conduct of any activities of your officee, for which such definition or determination is required or necessary.
The response received today from the Assistant AG was as follows:
Subject: “92F-12 Information Request”
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:57:52 -1000
There are no records or documents which are responsive to your requests.
Jill T. Nagamine
Deputy Attorney General
State of Hawaii
Analysis of Nagamine’s Response
It is already known that the Hawaii Department of Health has claimed that their July statement regarding Obama being a “natural-born citizen” was based on a letter received from Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett — this was revealed in an email received by Justin W. Riggs in July, which Attorney Leo Donofrio’s publically reported in a post on October 1st, 2009 (though this information was mentioned previously on the net).
This response of Deputy Attorney General Nagamine seemingly, further clarifies that this letter the DoH is claiming, was not an publically accessible communication, which such opinions normally have.
This can be seen from the statutory exception cited in the above letter:
§92F-13 Government records; exceptions to general rule. This part shall not require disclosure of:
(1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
Thus the request from the above citizen was very apt, encompassing, and allowed no exceptions regarding public statements.
It’s is obvious that the citizen was seeking not any specific communication between AG Bennett and Dr. Fukino, but rather sought to establish if there was any grounds or basis, founded in general records or proceedures or policies or opinions, on which such a letter or opinion on the natural born citizen issue would have been prepared. The text of the request merely cites the statute. Since the response was negative, it indicts both the AG’s office and the Doh.
Therefore one can soundly conclude that if a letter was issued, it was a private communication without any justification in prior policies or opinions given by the office of the Attorney General.
Furthermore, since you cannot claim personal privacy issues in matters wherein you, as the head of a State Agency, request an official opinion of the AG, upon which you are to conduct official and public business of the Agency, if the AG’s position is that the letter from AG Bennet is protected by personal privacy issues, it puts in doubt the immunity of Fukino, who, in seeking advice as a private person, would assume liability for it.
The implications appear dire for Dr. Chiyome Fukino.
It seems that she has unwittingly been put in the position of taking liability for her own determination of Obama being a natural-born citizen; since the letter from AG Bennet was informal, and not an official opinion.
Currently The Post & Email is seeking counsel for further determination of this interpretation of Nagamine’s response.
Some pertinent observations, which might assist understanding Nagamine’s response are as follows:
1) The HI AG’s office waited the full 10 day statutory period for responding.
2) Nagamine’s response does not deny that their office ever had or made such opinions, only that they do not currently have such records. This allows for the possibility that in the last 10 days, they disposed of such records.
3) The denial of the second request is markedly improbable; how do you run an AG’s office if you have no policy about determining citizenship status? As this is a recurrent question in all manners of legal proceedings in which the AG’s office would be involved on a normal basis. They should have at least said, “We look in the proper U.S. Statutes and apply them”, no?
4) The public can rightly ask if the AG’s office is attempting to distance itself from Dr. Fukino’s actions, and indicate that it will not take liability her in her July Statement.
The Post & Email once again calls on Governor Lingle, AG Bennett and Dr. Fukino to completely disclose the communications between the latter two regarding the July Statement of Dr. Fukino and well as disclose all the documents which pertain to the preparation of that public statement, and the vital records mentioned therein, since compelling public interest most certainly exists to justify this, according to Hawaiian Law. Continued silence and obstruction of public inquiry, will only lead to your condemnation in the court of public opinion, as being involved in a criiminal conspiracy to support the election fraud and usurpation of the U.S. Presidency commited by Barack Hussein Obama; which crimes on your part are no less grave than his.