Replies

"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."

And? They've already released the Index data covered by what you erroneously call "Part D." Do you want them to release it again?

As to the list applying "to part B of the statute," you are confusing what "part" means. When the statute refers to "this part" it refers to the entire "§338-18 Disclosure of records." That is the "part" of the statute. What you call "part B" is actually paragraph B of part 18 of §338.

"The 'exceptions' are the other parts of the statute and administrative rules that are sought by butter or myself."

There are no such exceptions relevant to your and butter's requests.

"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."

Oh no... I am using that specific word very deliberately. It's meant as mockery. That you did not notice is, well, delicious.

Changing the subject from "public interest" to "transparency" doesn't help you much, since you do not appear to understand what "transparency" means any more than you do "pubic interest." But releasing to you records in which you have no "tangible interest" does nothing to promote any efforts at transparency. It merely violates the law.

"HRS 388 doesn't protect a birth certificate's confidentiality "

What a goofy statement. The confidentiality protected is that of the registrant, not the certificate. The certificate is simply the document bearing the confidential information.

As to the hilarious example you used... the birth certificate of an infant hardly provides information relevant to the "performance... (of) a high level government official."

But then again, you wacky Birthers believe that newborn infants have "loyalties" to nations they won't even be aware of for years.

So your specious reasoning is only par for the course.

And? They've already released the Index data covered by what you erroneously call "Part D." Do you want them to release it again?

Yes, I would like them to release additional index data to confirm the legitimacy of the alleged COLB. According to a Hawaii legal opinion letter, file numbers are permissable parts of index data for public release."Index data consisting of name, age, and sex of the registrant and date, type and file number of the vital event and such other data as the director may authorize may be made available to the public." Link to source

There are no such exceptions relevant to your and butter's requests.

Wrong. Re-read ... "other data as the director may authorize" ... there's virtually ZERO limitations (pun intended).

Oh no... I am using that specific word very deliberately.

The use mitigates whatever point you think you were making and it fails at mocking because the result was that you came off looking ill-informed.

Public interest and transparency are definitely interrelated concepts. Here's a good example linking the two concepts ... specifically with Obama.

Public Interest Groups Want Transparency In The Spotlight

The confidentiality protected is that of the registrant, not the certificate

... and who is the registrant?? Only the most public figure in the world. He posted an alleged COLB. There's no confidentiality at risk.

All you pose is one incredibly ignorant argument after the next. Even the dismembered Black Knight put up a better fight than this.