ANDY MARTIN, J.D.

Post Office Box 1851

New York, NY 10150-1851
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-2639
Toll-free fax (866) 707-2639
Temporary Hawai’i
tel. (917) 664-9329
Plaintiff pro se

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

CIVIL NUMBER: 10-1-969-05 RAT

(Declaratory Judgment)

COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
EXHIBITS 1-5: SUMMONS

ANDY MARTIN, J.D.,

Plaintiff,
vs.

MARK J. BENNETT, in his

official capacity as
Attorney General
of the State of Hawai’i,
LINDA LINGLE, in her
official capacity as Governor
of the State of Hawai’i,

Defendants.
_________________________________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

 Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN, J.D., (“Plaintiff”), pro se, alleges in
this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against the Defendants as
follows:

COUNT ONE
I.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN is the author of the definitive book on

President Barack Obama (“Obama”), “Obama: The Man Behind The
Mask.” Plaintiff is also the producer/director of the first film
concerning Obama’s Hawai’i years, “Obama: The Hawai’i Years.” He
has also been writing columns and commentary about the president
for nearly six (6) years and he is currently planning a second
book on President Obama. Plaintiff holds a Juris Doctor degree
from the University of Illinois College of Law.

2. Defendants MARK J. BENNETT (“Bennett”) and LINDA LINGLE

(“Lingle”) are the Hawai’i Attorney General and Governor
respectively. Governor Lingle supervises and controls the actions
of the executive department and in particular supervises Dr.
Chiyome Fukino who is the Director of the Hawai’i Department of
Health.

3. This Complaint for Declaratory Relief and these proceedings

are instituted pursuant to § 632-1, Hawai’i Revised Statutes.

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to § 603-36, Hawaii

Revised Statutes.

5. The defendants are sued in their official capacities for the

reasons set forth in the exhibits accompanying and attached to
this Complaint.
II.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
 1. Plaintiff submitted a Uniform Information Practices Act
(“UIPA”) request to the defendants on or about November 2, 2008.
A copy of said request is attached as Exhibit 1.

2. Plaintiff further submitted a supplemental request to

Lingle on April 3, 2009, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit
2.

3. Defendants responded nearly seven (7) months later with a

virtually blanket refusal to disclose any of their own internal
communications. The UIPA materials for which defendants charged
Plaintiff $600 were virtually worthless and made a mockery of the
liberal UIPA principles applicable under both the UIPA statute
and the decisions of the Hawai’i courts interpreting the UIPA. A
copy of defendants' response is attached as Exhibit 3.

4. Plaintiff wrote to the defendants on April 14, 2010;

defendants have not responded. A copy of Plaintiff’s request is
attached as Exhibit 4. In a final effort to avoid a lawsuit
Plaintiff wrote to the defendants on April 30, 2010, attached as
Exhibit 5; again defendants have not responded.

5. There is great public confusion and national concern involving

the issue of Obama’s birth in this state. Ironically, the secrecy
and manipulation of the defendants, and their refusal to make
Hawai’i state records available to plaintiff, have fueled intense
speculation that Obama was not born in Hawai’i and may have been
born in Kenya. Plaintiff himself has always stated Obama was born
in Hawai’i, which is why he is suing to obtain Obama's Hawai’i
birth and other public records here; nevertheless, tens of
millions of Americans believe Obama was born in Kenya due to the
secrecy and manipulation of Hawai’i state records by the
defendants.

6. Unless and until Hawai’i executive branch officials and judges

stop stonewalling and concealing historical Hawaiian archives
concerning Obama, public speculation will continue to grow about
the nature and extent of Obama’s origins in this state. The
 defendants’ secrecy and manipulation of public records have
boomeranged: instead of quieting public concerns since 2008 and
laying to rest questions about Obama’s “roots,” approximately 150
million Americans now harbor doubts in 2010 about the whereabouts
and circumstances of Obama’s birth.

7. American media have coined the term “Birthers” to refer to the

approximately 150 million Americans who harbor doubts about the
circumstances of Obama’s birth. Plaintiff refers to these tens of
millions of concerned Americans collectively as “Birther Nation.”
III.

LEGAL CLAIM
1. In the past, Hawai’i courts have interpreted the UIPA
liberally.

2. The defendants’ current claim that any internal communications

of Hawai’i executive branch officials involving Obama’s records
are exempt from UIPA disclosure would gut the UIPA and make the
statute worthless.

3. The refusal of the defendants to comply with the UIPA is part

of an egregious (and misguided) partisan political manipulation
of the Obama archives by the defendants. Defendants, using Fukino
as their mouthpiece, have disseminated repeated statements and
remarks about the contents of Obama’s state files; when
challenged to produce the original documents to which they were
referring the defendants responded with claims of secrecy.

4. The defendants have waived any secrecy of state records

concerning Obama by Fukino’s repeated and continuing public
discussions of the Obama files and by their constant and
continuing efforts to obtain local and national publicity for
their claims.
IV.

DECLARATORY RELIEF SOUGHT

Plaintiff seeks to have the defendants fully comply with the UIPA
in good faith, and to provide all of their internal
communications which they have refused to provide to Plaintiff
for 1-1/2 years.

COUNT TWO
I.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraph One of Count One (¶

I).
II.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraph Two of Count One (¶

II).
III.

LEGAL CLAIM

1. Barack Obama is President of the United States. He is not by

any stretch of the imagination a private citizen to whom normal
privacy concerns are applicable. State and federal privacy
statutes applicable to ordinary private citizens were never
intended to impose a veil of secrecy over historical archives and
records concerning the President of the United States.

2. Hawai’i state files, records and other local sources of

information constitute historical archives both of this state and
the United States to which privacy statutes and privacy concerns
are either completely inapplicable or almost fully attenuated.
Obama himself has stated he has released his “birth certificate;”
therefore he has affirmatively waived any secrecy or privacy
concerning the original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate.
3. Defendants cannot be allowed to play games and seek to advance
a partisan political agenda concerning Obama by making public
claims about state documents and records which they then refuse
to make available for public inspection and copying.
IV.

DECLARATORY RELIEF SOUGHT

1. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief declaring

that Obama’s original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate
is a state and national historical record and archive which
should be made available to the American people and to
writers, journalists, scholars and researchers. This
finding should also be applicable to any and all Hawai’i
state and local government records concerning Obama
wherever located including, but not limited to, his school
and other records.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Andy Martin prays for relief as follows:

1. For a declaration by this Court that the attached record

reflects defendants have failed to comply with the UIPA in good
faith, and that Plaintiff as an author and writer and cinéaste is
a person to whom the requested UIPA materials should be made
available forthwith;

2. That because Obama is the President of the United States, he

is not a “private citizen” to whom normal privacy considerations
are applicable. Any Hawai’i state records or other medical and
school records constitute historical archives of this state and
the United States and should be made available to writers,
journalists, historians and scholars such as Plaintiff.

3. For such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

Dated: May 4, 2010

Honolulu, Hawai’i
 Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN, J.D.
Plaintiff Pro se
http://www.contrariancommentary.com/community/Home/tabid/36/mid/3
63/newsid363/665/Default.aspx