Replies

"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.

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

The director may authorize the release of any information at her discretion. No law is broken when she acts under this statutory authority.

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

Right. Those things are protected if there's no public interest in disclosure. The DOH posted an Obama FAQ page, so they've acknowledged there is plenty of public interest.

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.

There's no violation of law. A disclosure to the PUBLIC comes with no limitation as to who that may be. Check and mate ... still.

fact that the DOS made so substantive a response is a bonus.

Nonsense, faither. All they did was issue a stock denial for each point ... and each denial was issued under the pretext of the motion to dismiss. This is like someone entering a not guilty plea in a criminal case. If you get proven guilty, you're not charged with perjury for entering a not guilty plea.

If you don't think their testimony here is legally crushing to your case, then you must be on oxycontin.

A denial is not testimony. You underscore your desperation with pointless insults aimed at trying to intimidate your way out of a losing argument. Set and match.