wolf v fuddy (hi icoa) - opening brief

7/30/2019 Wolf v Fuddy (HI ICOA) - Opening Brief

1/26

CAAP-12-0000499

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF HAWAII

___________________________________

)WILLIAM WOLF, ) CIVIL NO. 11-1-2276-09)

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) APPELLANT WILLIAM WOLFS

) OPENING BRIEF; APPENDIX;vs. ) STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES

)

LORETTA FUDDY, in her official )

capacity as Director of the Department ) FIRST CIRCUIT COURTof Health, State of Hawaii, )

) THE HONORABLE GARY

Defendant-Appellee. ) W.B.CHANG, JUDGE)

APPELLANT WILLIAM WOLFS OPENING BRIEF

APPENDIX

STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES

WILLIAM WOLF600 Industrial Way West

Eatontown, NJ 07724

Phone: (732) 222-1800Facsimile: (732) 389-9191

Pro Se

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000499

09-OCT-201208:41 AM


2/26

CAAP-12-0000499


STATE OF HAWAII

___________________________________

)WILLIAM WOLF, ) CIVIL NO. 11-1-2276-09

)Plaintiff-Appellant, ) APPELLANT WILLIAM WOLFS

) OPENING BRIEF

vs. ))

LORETTA FUDDY, in her official )

capacity as Director of the Department )

of Health, State of Hawaii, ))

Defendant-Appellee. ))


WILLIAM WOLF

600 Industrial Way West

Eatontown, NJ 07724Phone: (732) 222-1800

Facsimile: (732) 389-9191

Pro Se


3/26


4/26

TABLE OF CONTENTS (contd)

Page

B. Alternatively, the UIPA Requires Access by Wolf to Obama's

Birth Records. ....................................................................................................... 10

1. Conflict Between Pertinent UIPA Sections Regarding Disclosure........... 10

2. Scrutiny and Evaluation of Justice v. Fuddy............................................. 11

3. The UIPA Codified an Override Mechanism............................................ 12

4. Parameters of the Privacy Interest Protected by the UIPA........................ 13

5. Evaluating All Scenarios, Wolf Must Prevail Under Each. ...................... 14

C. The Federal Constitution Prohibits Any State Law or State Action WhichDenies or Obstructs Access to a Current President's Birth Records..................... 15

D. Wolf is Entitled to Summary Judgment Forthwith No Remandis Necessary........................................................................................................... 17

V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 19

ii


5/26


6/26

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (contd)

Page

CASES (contd)

Wright v. Home Depot, U.S.A, Inc., 111 Haw. 401, 142 P.3d 265 (2006). ................................... 6

CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES

U. S. CONSTITUTION

Art. I, 8, cl. 3. .................................................................................................................. 16

Art. II, 1, cl. 4............................................................................................................ 14, 15

Art. III, 2, cl. 1................................................................................................................. 16

HAWAII CONSTITUTION

Art. 1, secs. 6, 7................................................................................................................. 11

HRS Chapter 92F, Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA)................................................. 2, 3

PART I. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS

HRS 92F-2. .............................................................................................................. 11, 13HRS 92F-2(1)..................................................................................................... 11

HRS 92F-2(5)......................................................................................... 5, passim

PART II. FREEDOM O F INFORMATION

HRS 92F-11

HRS 92F-11(a)................................................................................................... 10

HRS 92F-11(b)................................................................................................... 10HRS 92F-12(b)(3).................................................................................................... 11, 12

HRS 92F-13. ............................................................................................................ 10, 12

HRS 92F-13(1)............................................................................................. 10, 11HRS 92F-13(4)..................................................................................... 10, passim

HRS 92F-14(a)............................................................................................................... 10

HRS Chapter 338, Part I, State Public Health Statistics Act

HRS 338-18. ..................................................................................................... 1, passim

iv


7/26

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (contd)

Page

RULES

Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure

HRCP Rule 12(b)(6). ...................................................................................................... 4, 5

Hawaii Rules of Evidence

HRE 201...................................................................................................................... 17, 18

v


8/26

CAAP-12-0000499


STATE OF HAWAII

____________________________________)

WILLIAM WOLF, ) CIVIL NO. 11-1-2276-09

)

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) APPELLANT WILLIAM WOLFS) OPENING BRIEF

vs. )

)LORETTA FUDDY, in her official )

capacity as Director of the Department )of Health, State of Hawaii, ))

Defendant-Appellee. )

)


COMES NOW Plaintiff - Appellant William Wolf, (Wolf), appearing pro se, and

pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28, files his Opening Brief.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Overview

On April 27, 2011, President Barack Obama (Obama) orchestrated what may have

been the most visible and publicized disclosure in world history regarding ones record of birth

when he released what purported to be a Certificate of Live Birth [a so-called long-form birth

certificate] obtained from Defendant-Appellee Loretta Fuddy (Fuddy), Director of the Hawaii

State Department of Health (DOH).

Months later, Wolf made written application for access to all of Obamas birth records

maintained by Fuddy and the DOH. Two different statutes, enacted at different times, prescribe

access to such birth records. The older law, the State Public Health Statistics Act (Health

Statistics Act), Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 338-18, does not entirely protect such records

from disclosure, but limits access to twelve (12) categories of expressly enumerated persons

1


9/26

other than the registrant. The newer law, the Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act

(Modified) (UIPA), HRS Chapter 92F,has no limitation based on the identity of the requester.

Wolf has never claimed that he is one of those entitled to access under the older law. Yet,

when Wolfs request was denied, only the older law was cited in the denial. Further, the only

reason given for denial was that he was not one of that older laws expressly enumerated

persons.

Perhaps that bureaucratic action was not a deliberate subterfuge, but when it comes to

Obamas birth records Fuddy and the DOH have been very myopic. They cling only to the text

of the older law, ignoring other applicable principles of law such as disclosure and waiver, and

how Obamas highly publicized disclosure of details about his birth may impact application of

the older law. Even a legal novice would question if Obamas action changed how that older law

operates in this case. For example, was the disclosure a waiver that changes the equation?

Wolfs appeal will establish that he is not barred by the older law from access to

Obamas birth records. The text of that law is rendered inapplicable in this case because Obama

waived any protection from disclosure which that older law had given him. The corollary is that

Wolf has a clear and unobstructed path for access to Obamas birth records.

Alternatively, assuming that the older law remains applicable despite Obamas disclosure,

evaluation of two competing sections in the newer law becomes necessary. One section actually

incorporates the older law. But a forthright analysis compels (1) overriding of that section which

incorporates the older law and (2) the conclusion that the other section, which then requires that

Wolf gets access, must govern.

Finally, Wolfs appeal will establish that federal constitutional law bars any state law or

action that prohibits access to a sitting Presidents birth records. Accordingly, Wolf is entitled by

federal law to access, regardless how either the older or newer state laws are interpreted.

The brevity of Wolfs claim that federal constitutional law compels judgment in his favor

should not be interpreted as having less value or force than his contentions regarding state law.

As will be evident, the latter require significantly more exposition. Nor should his federal claim

be discounted solely because it is unprecedented. The evolution of constitutional law, as well as

the common law, proves that would be a mistake.

2


10/26

B. Background

By written application to the DOH, Wolf requested access to all of Obamas birth records,

including inspection and the provision of copies thereof. OIP (Office of Information Practices)

Form 1, August 30, 2011, Record on Appeal (ROA) 22-24. Wolf was notified by written notice

that his request was denied in its entirety, citing HRS 338-18, and stating that Wolf did not have

a direct and tangible interest as defined by that statute. OIP Form 4, September 16, 2011, ROA

25-29.

No mention was made in that denial to any UIPA section. Yet, both the application and

denial were on pre-printed OIP forms. Further, Wolf was advised in that denial that questions

regarding UIPA compliance may be directed to the Office of Information Practices. Perhaps this

advisory suggested that the UIPA also prohibited access, but, again, the UIPA was certainly not

specified as a reason for denial.

Wolf initiated the instant action in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit by filing a

Complaint to Compel Agency to Disclose Public Records under the Uniform Information

Practice Act (UIPA) against Fuddy, in her official capacity as Director of the DOH, dated

September 30, 2011 (Complaint) ROA 13-55. Attached to the Complaint and incorporated by

reference were multiple exhibits. The text of the Complaint consists of nine pages. ROA 13-21.

Though numbered from #1 to #7, there are 12 exhibits, as some are collective exhibits,

subdivided into A, B, C, etc. ROA 22-55.

In his Complaint, Wolf alleged that he had previously requested access to all of Obamas

birth records, that his request had been denied, and that he had thus exhausted all required

administrative remedies. ROA 15. The Complaint stated three causes of action. The first

invoked state law, both the UIPA and waiver by Obama that nullified application of HRS 338-

18. ROA 17. The second count also invoked state law, but undertook proof of the falsification of

documents. ROA 17-20. The third count invoked federal constitutional law and claimed access

based solely on establishing one fact, which is that Obama is the current President. ROA 20-21.

On appeal, Wolf is not pursuing the second count in his Complaint. Neither of the other

two counts alleges any falsity. Thus no longer do allegations of falsity as to any documents need

be to considered, including those disclosed by Obama. The core issue is access to the birth

3


11/26

records maintained by Fuddy and the DOH. Their authenticity or falsity are simply irrelevant for

purposes of this proceeding.

The factual averments in the Complaint and attached exhibits incorporated by reference

establish that Obama sent a letter to Fuddy, dated April 22, 2011, requesting two certified copies

of his original certificate of live birth. ROA 15; 31. By letter to Fuddy bearing the same date,

Obamas lawyer requested a waiver of departmental policy, if any, so that Obama could make a

certified copy of his original long-form birth certificate publicly available. ROA 15; 33-34. By

letter dated April 25, 2011, Fuddy stated that she was issuing to Obama two certified copies of his

original Certificate of Live Birth. ROA 15; 38. Two days later, in a news release from the

Governors office, Fuddy confirmed the details of that correspondence between her and Obama

and that two certified copies were delivered in person to Obamas lawyer. ROA 15; 40-41.

The Complaint also establishes that on April 27, 2011, in the White House, Obama

personally participated in a disclosure to the entire world of a fully completed long-form

certificate of birth that bears his name. ROA 15-16; 43. There was no redaction of any

information that was required to be reported on that pre-printed form. Many witnessed the

disclosure and heard Obamas remarks. ROA 45-46. Recording of the event occurred in many

forms. ROA 16-17; 48-55. The magnitude of distribution thereof to media and Internet outlets

warrants describing Obamas premeditated disclosure as perhaps the most visible and extensive

release in world history of information about ones birth. That was Obamas plan; he

accomplished what he had planned.

At a hearing on December 8, 2011, the lower court orally granted Fuddys motion to

dismiss pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 12(b)(6) alleging failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A written Order thereof was filed January 27,

2012. ROA 353-355.

As of January 12, 2012, two motions by Wolf were pending. One was his summary

judgment motion filed December 1, 2011. ROA 225-226. The other was his Motion for Relief

from Judgment or Order or for Other Relief (Motion for Relief), filed December 20, 2011. At

a hearing on that date, both motions were orally denied. The lower court sided with Fuddys

contention that HRS 338-18 governed, and that Wolf was thereby prohibited from access.

Reporters Transcript, January 12, 2012, at pages 22-23. Written orders denying Wolfs Motion

4


12/26

for Relief and summary judgment motion were not filed until April 25, 2012. ROA 363-364; 357-

358.

On that same date, the lower court filed a Final Judgment as to All Claims and All

Parties (Final Judgment). April 25, 2012. ROA 359-362.

On May 14, 2012, a Notice of Appeal, including Exhibits AC, was filed by Wolf. ROA

365-380.

II. POINTS OF ERROR

No written findings of fact were issued by the lower court; nor were any written

conclusions of law, except the rulings granting Fuddys motion to dismiss the Complaint, denying

Wolfs summary judgment motion, and denying Wolfs Motion for Relief. Those rulings are

shown by the Final Judgment, filed April 25, 2012. ROA 359-362. The Final Judgment simply

repeats written orders issued by the lower court, which documented its oral rulings on motions

heard December 8, 2011 and January 12, 2012. The errors in those rulings and Final Judgment

include the following:

A. Granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss under HRCP Rule 12(b)(6)

The lower court erred when it dismissed the Complaint due to the following, individually

and collectively:

(a) It erroneously applied only the text of HRS 338-18 when waiver was alleged and

established, as statutory protections granted to persons by HRS 338-18 can be

waived by them;

(b) It erroneously concluded that the Complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to

establish a waiver that renders HRS 338-18 inapplicable to Wolfs request for

access to Obamas birth records;

(c) It erroneously concluded that UIPA 92F-2(5) cannot be applied whenever the

text of HRS 338-18 also covers the factual situation;

(d) It erroneously concluded that the Complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to

establish that UIPA 92F-2(5) entitles Wolf to access Obamas records;

(e) It erroneously enabled state law and state action, in violation of federal

constitutional law, to obstruct and prohibit access to the birth records of the current

President of the United States; and

5


13/26

(f) It erroneously failed to conclude that the Complaint alleged sufficient facts to

establish that the federal Constitution entitles Wolf to access Obamas birth

records.

B. Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment

The lower court erred when it denied Wolfs summary judgment motion because:

(a) It is factually indisputable that Obama is the current President of the United States

and that this fact alone enables Wolf to access Obamas birth records under federal

constitutional law;

(b) It is factually indisputable that Obama waived the statutory protection given him

by HRS 338-18 and thus that statute cannot be applied to bar Wolfs request for

access; and

(c) It is factually indisputable that Obamas action on April 27, 2011 diminished his

confidentiality interest in his birth records and that it would clearly not be an

unwarranted invasion of Obamas privacy for Wolf to access said birth records

pursuant to UIPA 92F-2(5).

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Motion to Dismiss Complaint

A trial courts ruling on a motion to dismiss under HRCP Rule 12(b)(6) is reviewed de

novo. Wright v. Home Depot, U.S.A, Inc., 111 Haw. 401, 406, 142 P.3d 265, 270 (2006).

A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to

relief.In re Estate of Rogers, 103 Haw. 275, 280-81, 81 P.3d 1190, 1195-96 (2003).

Plaintiffs complaint must be viewed in a light most favorable to him in order to

determine whether the allegations therein could warrant relief under any alternative theory. E.g.

Ravelo v. County of Hawaii, 66 Haw. 194, 199, 658 P.2d 883, 886 (1983); Justice v. Fuddy, 125

Haw. 104, 107, 253 P.3d 665, 668 (2011) (Justice).

B. Motion for Summary Judgment

Review of a lower courts grant or denial of summary judgment is denovo. Coon v. City

and County of Honolulu, 98 Haw. 233, 244, 47 P.3d 348, 359 (2002) (Coon).

6


14/26


15/26

called the registrant, whose birth record is collected and maintained by the DOH. Unlike other

records collected by public agencies, the registrant in birth records, the child, is for obvious

reasons not the one who filed or reported the required information.

2. The Nature and Characteristics of the Protected Interest

Is that protected interest a right; a shield; a privilege? Or better described using some

other legal jargon? While it might be interesting to ponder and debate that question, Wolf will

assume that it is a right and refer to it accordingly. After all, it is legally enforceable, and calling

it a right puts it at the top of the legal hierarchy of such labels.

What does that right protect? Privacy; confidentiality of general details about ones life

that everybody has in their background, many of which are published in newspapers around the

time of birth? Everyone was born (1) on a date, (2) at a time of day, (3) at a location, (4) was a

certain length and (5) weight. Of course, all had a mother. More mundane statistics about every

birth, although unique to the individual, can be listed and must be reported to the DOH.

It is obvious that the information collected and maintained in birth records is at the low

end of the spectrum when contrasted with ones medical records, financial records, employment

records, arrest records, and many other records containing personal information which might be

misused so as to prejudice the registrant. This is evident in that birth records can be released as a

matter of right to a number of persons other than the registrant, the twelve (12) other categories of

persons listed under 338-18(b). Birth records simply do not contain the innermost secrets and

intimate details that can embarrass or humiliate. Nor do they contain sensitive information that is

generally associated with notions of individual privacy.

Nevertheless, birth records are protected to a limited degree by the obligations created by

338-18, which codifies how such information is filed, handled and released. The result is

confidentiality of birth records, albeit with some connotation of privacy. Accordingly, Wolf will

hereafter refer to it as a limited right to confidentiality as to ones birth records.

3. A Statutory Right Can be Waived

Waiver as a common law principle is an intentional relinquishment of a known right.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Housing & Community Development Corporation of Hawaii , 117

Haw. 174, 201, 177 P.3d 884, 911 (2008) (HCDCH); Coon,supra at 261, 376. To constitute a

waiver, there must have been a right, which the waiving person actually or constructively knew

8


16/26

existed at the time of the alleged waiver. HCDCH,supra; Coon,supra; Honolulu Fed. Sav. &

Loan Ass'n v. Pao, 4 Haw. App. 478, 484, 668 P.2d 50, 54 (1983).

A waiver may be established by express statement, or by acts and conduct from which an

intent to waive can be reasonably inferred. HCDCH,supra; Coon,supra; Wilart Assocs. v.

Kapiolani Plaza Ltd., 7 Haw. App. 354, 359-60, 766 P.2d 1207, 1210-11 (1988).

Whether or not a waiver occurred is generally a question of fact, but when the facts are

undisputed it may become a question of law. HCDCH,supra; Coon,supra at 261-62, 376-77;

Hawaiian Homes Comm'n v. Bush, 43 Haw. 281, 286 (1959);In re Estate of Searl, 72 Haw. 222,

226-27, 811 P.2d 328, 831 (1991).

Nothing in 338-18 or the Health Statistics Act prohibits waiver by the registrant of his

right to confidentiality of his birth records. Nor is there any other state law or judicial decision

that prohibits such waiver.

Wolf has found nothing in 338-18 or the Health Statistics Act that authorizes or prescribes

how waiver of that right to confidentiality may be effectuated or occur. To forestall any such

contention by Fuddy, legislative silence in no way detracts from ones ability to waive his 338-18

right to confidentiality.

By analogy, the federal Constitution and Bill of Rights are silent regarding waiver of the

many fundamental and cherished rights created by those laws. Nothing in the text of either says

anything about waiver. Yet in countless cases daily throughout the nation, in its courts, police

stations, and on the streets, those fundamental and cherished rights are repeatedly waived. To

suggest that waiver of the statutory right to confidentiality created by 338-18 could not occur

because of legislative silence would be absurd.

4. Waiver of a Statutory Right Stops Application of the Statute

It is elementary that if a right is waived the legal consequence is to not apply the law that

is the source of that right. Again, by analogy to the waiver of a right created by the Bill of Rights,

the protection given by that right is no longer applied. For example, when the right to jury trial is

waived, there is no jury trial. The result is no different when a statutory right is waived. Waiver

of the right created by a statute eliminates application of the statute.

9


17/26

5. The Complaint Alleges Sufficient Facts to Render 338-18

Inapplicable

Fuddy has never addressed the issue of how the waiver in this case can impact the

administration of 338-18. Once it is judicially determined that the substantive law does provide

that a waiver can render the text of 338-18 inapplicable, the issue becomes whether the Complaint

has alleged sufficient facts to establish such waiver.

At that point, there is no question about the sufficiency of facts alleged in the Complaint

to establish waiver. Indeed, the facts alleged in the Complaint are indisputable. Accordingly,

Obamas right to 338-18 confidentiality, as a matter of law, has been waived. The corollary, as

Wolf contends in his argument regarding summary judgment, infra, is that Wolf is entitled to

immediate judgment for access to Obamas birth records.

B. Alternatively, the UIPA Requires Access by Wolf to Obamas Birth Records

1. Conflict Between Pertinent UIPA Sections Regarding Disclosure

Part II of the UIPA, HRS 92F-11 through 92F-19, is entitled Freedom of

Information. 92F-11 sets forth the general responsibilities of state government agencies to

make records available for inspection and copying. Subsection (a) of that section provides [a]ll

government records are open to inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law.

Subsection (b) provides [e]xcept as provided in section 92F-13, each agency upon request by

any person shall make government records available for inspection and copying during regular

business hours [.]

Section 92F-13 has five exceptions to Part IIs general rule of disclosure. Only two of

those five exceptions could possibly pertain to Wolfs request. Section 92F-13 provides:

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; . . . (4) Government records which, pursuant to state or federal law . . . are

protected from disclosure [.] As to the privacy exception, 92F-14(a) requires considering the

publics interest in disclosure by providing that [d]isclosure of a government record shall not

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if the public interest in disclosure

outweighs the privacy interest of the individual.

10


18/26

Fuddy has not invoked the UIPA to block Wolfs request. Strategically, as will become

quite evident, Fuddys only UIPA option is 92F-13(4).

Wolf invokes Part I of the UIPA, including but not limited to 92F-2(5). In pertinent

part, 92F-2 provides: Purposes; rules of construction. . . . The policy of conducting

government business as openly as possible must be tempered by a recognition of the right of the

people to privacy, as embodied in section 6 and section 7 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the

State of Hawaii. This chapter shall be applied and construed to promote its underlying purpose

and policies which are to: (1) Promote the public interest in disclosure; . . . (5) Balance the

individual privacy interest and the public access interest, allowing access unless it would

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Ironically, Wolf invokes and relies on a UIPA section whose language corresponds to the

UIPAs privacy exception that is often employed to forbid access. Fuddys declination to invoke

92F-13(1) the privacy exception and deal with that language, would not be an oversight.

2. Scrutiny and Evaluation of Justice v. Fuddy

Any discussion or resolution of Wolfs appeal must scrutinize and evaluate Justice, supra.

It is not just the most pertinent appellate case. Fuddy is again the defendant appellee. The

Attorney General is again her attorney. Obamas birth records are again being sought. Both 338-

18 and the UIPA are again focal points.

Justice provides considerable guidance. But it is not dispositive of any of Wolfs theories

for access under state law, even though Justicesquarely held that 338-18 defeated Dr. Justices

request for access to Obamas birth certificate.

The plaintiff in Justice relied on UIPA 92F-12(b)(3), hereafter 12(b)(3), to obtain

access. Fuddy contended 338-18 barred access, as that plaintiff did not come within one of the 13

enumerated categories. Before deciding the case, the appellate court discussed several important

points.

First, Fuddy (and the Attorney General) advocated that 338-18, an older law than the

UIPA, was incorporated into 92F-13(4), hereafter 13(4), which is one of the five statutory

exceptions to UIPAs general rule that all government records are open to public inspection.

Fuddys statutory interpretation was accepted. Justice,supra at 111, 672. Thus 13(4) and 338-

18, hereinafter 13(4)/338-18, are synonymous.

11


19/26

Second, when that plaintiff contended that 12(b)(3) was nevertheless controlling, the

appellate court said his argument, in effect, was that 12(b)(3) overrides 13(4)/338-18. The

court explicitly recognized that two UIPA sections could provide conflicting directions on which

one should prevail when a request for records satisfied the criteria of both sections. Justice, supra

at 111, 672.

Justice, however, found it unnecessary to decide if one UIPA section may override

another UIPA section. The proofs simply did not meet the criteria for application of 12(b)(3) as

invoked by that plaintiff,. This left only 13(4)/338-18 and thus it was applied. Justice,supra at

111-12, 672 -73.

Therefore, from Justice, the following conclusions are submitted:

1. Justice did not consider and thus did not decide Wolfs claim that waiver can

render 338-18 inapplicable,see IV.A.,supra;

2. Justice held that 338-18 is incorporated in (subsumed by) 13(4);

3. Justice held that it is unnecessary to consider override if the criteria of only oneUIPA section is established;

4. Justice signaled that override could be a judicially declared rule of law used to

decide which of two conflicting UIPA sections should be given precedence, solong as the criteria of each section was established; and

5. Justice did not mention any legislative override mechanism codified in the UIPA,whether 92F-2(5) or any other section.

3. The UIPA Codified An Override Mechanism

Given the holding in Justice that 338-18 is incorporated in (subsumed by) 13(4), Wolf

must overcome two hurdles before his invocation of 92F-2(5) is relevant. One is that the

criteria of that section are met. The other is the issue of override left undecided byJustice. If an

override by one section over another section would never be permissible in a case arising under

the UIPA, to discuss whether Wolf met the criteria of 92F-2(5) is irrelevant. Thus that question

is deferred, pending resolution of the permissibility of an override.

Per the UIPA, application of 13(4)/338-18 to prohibit access is not necessarily a one-

step process. 92F-13 explicitly states: [t]his part shall not require disclosure of . . . records

within the five enumerated exceptions to the general rule of disclosure provided by 92F-11.

12


20/26

The legislatures use of part, not chapter, confines the supremacy of that directive to Part II

of the UIPA.

This combines with the mandate of Chapter 92F which explicitly states in 92F-2: [t]his

chapter shall be applied and construed to promote its underlying purposes and policies . . . .

The legislatures use of chapter, not part, makes Part II of the UIPA subordinate to 92F-2.

It is well settled that, [w]hen construing a statute, our foremost obligation is to ascertain

and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the

language contained in the statute itself. And we must read statutory language in the context of the

entire statute and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose. HCDCH,supra, at 191,

901. (citations omitted).

The legislature unequivocally authorized, under appropriate circumstances, a two-step

process to determine if disclosure of a record should be made. A preliminary determination under

Part II is not always final. When appropriate, a further evaluation and decision under Part I can

reverse that preliminary determination. In other words, the UIPA obviously contains a codified

override mechanism.

4. Parameters of the Privacy Interest Protected by the UIPA

State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers v. Society of Professional Journalists, 83

Haw. 378, 927 P.2d 386 (1996) ("SHOPO") is the leading case discussing what is encompassed in

the "privacy interest" protected by the UIPA. It contains an extensive discussion of this right,

including historical excerpts from prior case law and legislative committee reports.

For example, a 1988 committee report was cited for its avowed purpose to provide clear

legislative intent if any dispute arose. Specifically, SHOPO quoted the following committee

language: "once a significant privacy interest is found, the privacy interest will be balanced

against the public interest in disclosure. If the privacy interest is not significant, a scintilla of

public interest will preclude a finding of a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Id.

at 383-84, 391-92. The court also recognized prior case law that only highly personal and

intimate information, such as medical, financial, educational, and employment records are within

the scope of the state constitutional right to privacy.Id. at 398-99, 406-07.

13


21/26

Throughout SHOPO, the privacy interest codified in the UIPA is equated with and

compared to the state constitutional right to privacy. Perhaps the two are coextensive and the

same. But SHOPO neither decided nor addressed that issue.

This is significant because Justiceupheld Fuddy's position that the UIPA in 13(4)

incorporated 338-18. But the information in birth records certainly is not within the scope of the

constitutional right to privacy. So the question is if that incorporation of 338-18 transformed a

right to confidentiality of birth records into a privacy interest protected by the UIPA. Or did that

incorporation simply overlay a statutory right to confidentiality atop a constitutional right to

privacy? The question is a legitimate one. But Wolf demonstrates, infra, that the question is

academic under the circumstances of this case.

5. Evaluating All Scenarios, Wolf Must Prevail Under Each

Two scenarios must be considered in determining if Wolf has established the criteria of

92F-2(5) and, if so, how that impacts Wolf's request for access.

The premise of the first scenario is that the privacy interest protected by the UIPA is

co-extensive with, and the same as, the constitutional right to privacy. As birth records are not

within the scope of that constitutional right, there would be no (zero) invasion of Obama's

personal privacy by allowing Wolf to access his birth records. This differs from a "warranted"

invasion of privacy within the meaning of 92F-2(5), and thus arguably dispenses with any

weighing of public interest. Regardless, that statutory element is easily established by

recognizing the legitimate interest of the public in whether or not Obama meets the constitutional

eligibility requirements to be President. See U.S. Const., Art. II, 1, cl. 4, infra.

Under this first scenario, nothing further is necessary to decide Wolf's UIPA request.

Section 92F-2(5) applies, while 13(4)/338-18 has no legal effect because the incorporation of

Obamas 338-18 limited right to confidentiality as to his birth records was not transformed into a

constitutional right of privacy.

Assume, arguendo, that the incorporation of the 338-18 right to confidentiality, even

though not within the constitutional right to privacy, added birth records to the privacy interest

protected by the UIPA. This second scenario requires an analysis to determine if the criteria of

92F-2(5) are established. If the answer is affirmative, then the issue of override not decided in

Justice must be addressed and decided.

14


22/26

Examining and balancing Obama's privacy interest versus the public interest in further

disclosure of his birth records is profoundly impacted by Obama's prior world-wide disclosure.

What would have been the result of a balancing inquiry before April 27, 2011 is purely academic.

Any privacy interest Obama had before that date was substantially diminished, if not totally

eviscerated, by his public disclosure on a world-wide stage. Thus, even if it is assumed that

complete waiver by Obama did not occur, it is difficult to envision what remains of what never

was a significant privacy interest.

Turning to the public interest in Obama's birth records, it is more than just a "scintilla."

See SHOPO, supra. Those records shed light on Obama's compliance with his obligation to abide

by federal constitutional prerequisites to occupy our nation's highest office. There can be no

doubt that the public's interest in disclosure outweighs whatever diminutive privacy interest

Obama may still have in his birth records.

Under such circumstances, the criteria of 92F-2(5) for disclosure are established;

allowing Wolf to access Obama's birth records would not constitute a clearly unwarranted

invasion of Obama's personal privacy.

The only remaining question is whether 92F-2(5) should override 13(4)/338-18.

Implementation of how the UIPA shall be applied and construed, as mandated in 92F-2,

unequivocally leads to only an affirmative answer. So does the intuitive foresight signaled in

Justice. Unquestionably, Wolf is entitled by law to access Obama's birth records.

C. The Federal Constitution Prohibits Any State Law or State Action Which

Denies or Obstructs Access to a Current Presidents Birth Records

The United States Constitution provides No person except a natural born Citizen . . .

shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who

shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within

the United States. U.S. Const., Art II, 1, cl. 4.

This constitutional provision is self-executing. It operates of its own force. No legislation

is necessary for its operation, either at the federal or state levels.

The Eligibility Clause is not just a list of three requirements. Within its scope are the

current President, Vice President, and any candidate for those offices. Its full operative effect

15


23/26

assures unfettered public access to all records and information pertinent to whether those persons

within its scope meet the three requirements.

There are other federal constitutional provisions that are self-executing and limit state

power, even though no Congressional statute exists. One example is the Commerce Clause, Art.

I, 8, cl. 3., which does more than give Congress the power to regulate commerce. It also limits

state power, even when Congress has done nothing. In other words, state laws can be struck down

solely because they violate federal power inherent in the Commerce Cause.E.g., Hughes v.

Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322, 99 S. Ct. 1727, 60 L. Ed. 2d 250 (1979); Southern Pacific Co. v.

Arizona, 325 U.S. 761, 65 S. Ct. 1515, 89 L. Ed. 1915 (1945).

Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction are another example. The Constitution

placed those cases within the federal judicial branch. Art III, 2, cl. 1. The result is limits on state

power, even without a federal statute. Again, state laws can be struck down solely because they

violate federal power inherent in that Article III provision.E.g., Southern Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244

U.S. 205, 37 S. Ct. 524, 61 L. Ed. 1086 (1917); Washington v. Dawson & Co., 264 U.S. 219, 44

S. Ct. 302, 68 L. Ed. 646 (1924).

The question in such commerce and admiralty cases is which, between competing federal

constitutional provisions and state laws or other state actions, governs an activity or transaction.

Resolving that constitutional issue requires drawing a line between federal and state power.

Phrases such as national interest versus local concern tend to be used to define and decide

that issue.

The Eligibility Clause is obviously different from the foregoing. It governs a federal

activity or transaction. There is no competing local concern. Nor could there be.

Federal power is limited by the Eligibility Clause. No federal law or action, whether by

legislation, executive order, or administrative regulation, can change or modify the three

requirements. Only a constitutional amendment could do so.

Inherent in the Eligibility Clause are further limits on federal power. Suppose Congress

enacted a law that restricted public access to the birth records of the President, Vice-President, or

candidates for those two offices. Would that be a lawful exercise of federal power? Of course

not. Afortiori, the states, including Hawaii, have no greater power.

16


24/26

The Complaint, specifically Count 3, alleged sufficient facts to establish that the federal

Constitution precludes Fuddy from denying Wolf access to Obamas birth records.

Obama was the President when Wolf made his original request to the agency headed by Fuddy.

He is still the President and thus has been within the scope of the self-executing Eligibility Clause

throughout Wolfs efforts to obtain Obamas birth records. There is only one operative or

adjudicative fact that Wolf needs to prove, if his interpretation of the federal Constitution is

upheld. Obviously, the fact to prove is that Obama is President. There should be no doubt that

Wolf can prove that fact.

Indeed, as Wolf contends in his argument regarding summary judgment, infra, that fact is

indisputable and should be the subject of mandatory judicial notice by this court pursuant to

Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) 201.

D. Wolf is Entitled to Summary Judgment Forthwith No Remand Is Necessary

This appeal presents a unique situation. In AFL Hotel & Restaurant Workers Health &

Welfare Trust Fund v. Bosque, 110 Haw. 318, 132 P. 3d 1229 (2006) (Bosque), the Hawaii

Supreme Court did not preclude entry of a summary judgment by an appellate court, so long as

the trial court had denied summary judgment.

Procedurally, Wolfs case parallels Bosque. Both involve lower court dismissals of a

complaint. They differ however, as to the lower courts disposition of the plaintiffs summary

judgment motion. In Bosque the lower court dismissed the motion as moot rather than ruling on

its merits. By contrast, Wolfs was denied on the merits. ROA 359-362; 357-358.

Thus, pursuant to Bosque, this court has jurisdiction to consider and grant summary

judgment in Wolfs favor. Further, Wolf is entitled to summary judgment, on either or both his

federal (Count 3) and state (Count 1) theories. If Wolfs appeal is sustained and the lower courts

dismissal of the Complaint is reversed, no remand is necessary.

Specifically, if it is decided that Count 3 of the Complaint has stated a cause of action and

was erroneously dismissed by the lower court, Wolf only has to prove that Obama is the current

President to be entitled to judgment on his request for access. That adjudicative fact is

indisputable and should be the subject of mandatory judicial notice by the court pursuant to HRE

201. Nothing more is necessary from Wolf and summary judgment should accordingly be

entered in his favor.

17


25/26


26/26

31; 33-34; 38; 40-41], and the execution of their plan forever shredded any claims of

confidentiality or privacy as to Obamas birth records.

Therefore, besides immediate summary judgment for Wolf based on Count 3, immediate

summary judgment based on Count 1 should also be granted.

V. CONCLUSION

Up to now, Fuddys position has been akin to that of a surrogate who has locked the barn

door after the owner released his horse. The time has come for a forthright and specific reply to

Wolfs request.

For the reasons set forth herein, this Court should reverse the dismissal of the Complaint,

grant summary judgment to Wolf, and issue an order to Fuddy that Wolf be allowed access to

inspect all birth records of Barack Obama and obtain copies thereof.

Dated: Eatontown, New Jersey October 9, 2012

/s/ William Wolf

William Wolf

Pro Se

19

wolf v fuddy (hi icoa) - opening brief

Documents