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.