Replies

Sadly for you though, none of the "possible third-parties" that are enumerated in the law have asked for one. I note that nether butterdezillion nor you are on that list.

According to the DOH's adminstrative rules (posted at butter's site) we are. The only problem is that the DOH doesn't want to follow its own rules. Instead they carry water for a fraud.

What part of "The department shall not..." do you have trouble understanding? Exactly?

It only applies to CERTIFIED copies of the record and physical inspections of records. I'm not asking for my own certified copy of the record and I'm not asking for personal access to the DOH's records. Do you understand??

LOL... I suspected it before when I suggested you go find out what "public interest" means, and now I know you are clueless. It doesn't mean morbid curiosity. Look up "legitimate" too while you're at it.

Translated: you knew you were pwned on this point, so you're going to post a vapid insult and some pointless word search game because you can't dispute the point. I accept your concession.

And 15 or 20 years from now when there actually is an Obama Presidential Library, you and I can go together and look for them.

I hope you like looking at empty rooms and blank exhibits.

"According to the DOH's adminstrative rules (posted at butter's site) we are. The only problem is that the DOH doesn't want to follow its own rules. Instead they carry water for a fraud."

LOL... no, you're not.

The Statute (§338-18) is pretty clear on who is. Here's the list:

"(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy."

So... where exactly on that list do you and butterdezillion fall? Exactly?

"It only applies to CERTIFIED copies of the record and physical inspections of records. I'm not asking for my own certified copy of the record and I'm not asking for personal access to the DOH's records. Do you understand??"

It says nothing about "physical" inspection. But that's okay, the actual statute is even clearer in that issue:

"§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health."

Now... since instead of taking my sound advice to go figure out what "public interest" means, you whined about being insulted, let me help you out from UIPA Manual:

"The public interest to be considered is the public’s interest in the disclosure of official information that sheds light on an agency’s performance of its statutory purpose and the conduct of government officials, or which otherwise promotes governmental accountability."

As I said, it's not mere prurient interest. You actually have to have a reason that fits into the above. And to short stop the pointless quibble I suspect you will make next, no. The "governmental accountability" discussed here is not the Fed's... it's the State's.

Oh... and one other thing, you kept irrationally insisting that the Director had the discretion to release records even in violation of the law. The UIPA manual also disagrees with you on that.

"Unless it is required by another law or court order to maintain the confidentiality of a record, the agency can choose to disclose a record that falls under an exception."

Since Obama's birth certificate is prohibited from disclosure to you by §338-18, the Director has no discretion to release it.