Replies

"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.

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

The list applies to part B of the statute. Other parts of the statute have different "lists," while Part D has no list ... it is open to the public.

It says nothing about "physical" inspection. ... the actual statute is even clearer in that issue:

Part B talks about inspection of records and certified copies of the records. Also, you completely missed this part of what you highlighted ... "except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted." The "exceptions" are the other parts of the statute and administrative rules that are sought by butter or myself.

As I said, it's not mere prurient interest.

You're misusing a word here. Best to go look it up before you embarrass yourself further. What you cite on public interest completely supports our efforts at transparency.

The UIPA manual also disagrees with you on that.

No, actually it doesn't. You're not quite understanding what you quoted. This talks about a maintaining confidentiality. HRS 388 doesn't protect a birth certificate's confidentiality ... just access to copies of certified records or physicial access by persons to inspect records in person. Other parts of the statute are for public health statistical records, public birth indexes (such as how birth announcements were listed in the newspaper) ... there's no confidentiality and certainly no court order in place ... and there's especially no confidentiality expected since Obama already released an alleged abstract of the record.

They give a really good example in the manual that would explain exactly why Obama's certificate should be released.

"A former University President had a significant privacy interest in the Board of Regents’ evaluation of his job performance. The public had a strong interest in scrutinizing the work of the Board of Regents as well as the President’s performance as a high level government official. Although the two rights were closely balanced, OIP found that the public interest outweighed the employee’s privacy interest."