Replies

Again, neither HRS 388-18(d) nor UIPA gives the Director of the DOH the discretionary authority to break the clear letter of the law.

HRS 338-18(d) says: "such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public." UIPA 92F-14(a) says: "(a) Disclosure of a government record shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual." That would be check and mate.

It only matters what its true, and what is not.

No kidding. So why fight the disclosure of a record that doesn't need to be hidden??

It is simply a lie that Obama's grandmother ever said he was born in Kenya. And what some "homie" says hardly satisfies any exception to the hearsay rule unless the "homie" was present at the birth.

Until official documents are released, hearsay is all we have for claims of Hawaiian birth.

Having actually worked in health care for most of my career, much of that time working with hospital executives, no you don't. A deputy administrator is a deputy administrator, even when filling in for the boss.

So hearsay is okay when you say it?? Please.

Nonsense. A date stamp on a digital image says whatever the internal clock of the camera was set at. The date on a newspaper article reflects the date the article was released. There is no meaningful comparison.

Wrong. The meaningful comparison is that we don't have all the facts. You can't presume one instance disproves one thing while the other is legit. I'm on the side of having ALL the facts and not trying to guess.

That was a reference to State Department regulations which have been in place since long before Obama was elected. They prescribe exactly what characteristics a document must hove to be proof of citizenship at birth. And Obama's COLB exceeds them.

The denials said nothing about whether the state department personally inspected any documents. They sure as hell didn't say the COLB 'exceeds' anything. That's just fantasy.

And again... they do so under penalty of perjury.

These are denials of allegations not testimony of fact. There's a major difference. The allegations have to be proven. Denials don't. Sorry, but a denial is not affirmation of factuality, especially when there's no evidence that documents were inspected for accuracy, that the state department has full knowledge of the Soetoro/Dunham marital arrangement, etc. Don't make this so easy.

"HRS 338-18(d) says: "such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public."

Unfortunately it does not say "even when to do so would break the law."

"UIPA 92F-14(a) says: "(a) Disclosure of a government record shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual."

And yet, you inexplicably failed to tell us what UIPA 92F-14(b) then immediately says:

"(b) The following are examples of information in which the individual has a significant privacy interest:

(1) Information relating to medical, psychiatric, or psychological history, diagnosis, condition, treatment, or evaluation, other than directory information while an individual is present at such facility;

Oh, darn... not so "check and mate" after all. Not only do we know for a fact that to release Obama's birth certificate to a random non-interested party like you or Butterdezillion would 1) violate the law and 2) have nothing to do with public interest, but it is exactly the sort of record that the UIPA holds at as an example of where there is a significant privacy interest and should not be released.

"These are denials of allegations not testimony of fact. There's a major difference. The allegations have to be proven. Denials don't."

You have to simply stop making stuff up. In point of fact, whether either are "proven" has nothing to do with it. A statement made under penalty of perjury is precisely that, a presentation to the court that what they say is factually true and given under oath. Once again, we are confronted with the bizarro backwards world in which Birthers reside.

You did get one thing right though. The burden of proof here is on the person making the allegations (Strunk), not the State Department. The fact that the DOS made so substantive a response is a bonus. They really didn't have to.

Sorry, but a denial is not affirmation of factuality, especially when there's no evidence that documents were inspected for accuracy, that the state department has full knowledge of the Soetoro/Dunham marital arrangement, etc. Don't make this so easy."

Once again, we find you inventing a whole new set of "verification rules" that exist nowhere but in the fevered imagination of Birthers. We actually have legal standards that already exist ahead of time, specifically so people can't arbitrarily move the goalposts every time the opposing team scores. Standards for things like admissibility, authenticity and legal proof.

The State Department speaks as the authority on issues of American citizenship and the documentation of that cirizenship. If you don't think their testimony here is legally crushing to your case, then you must be on oxycontin.