Replies

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.

"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."

That letter is from 1990. It quotes a version of the statute that is no longer in effect. Nice try, but without a time machine, you've already gotten everything the statute currently allows.

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

Except (again) the limitation of not being able to release information forbidden by law to release.

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

How would you know? You continue to demonstrate no valid understanding of either. You have demonstrated no genuine public interest that would be served by accessing Obama's original birth certificate other than satisfying your prurient (see, I used the word again) interest in knowing the name of his attending physician... something with exactly no relevance to his eligibility as President.

"He posted an alleged COLB. There's no confidentiality at risk."

1) The law does not care what Obama has done... he can do anything he wants. The law places limitations on the Hawaii DOH, and the DOH would still be breaking the law were they to release the information to you.

2) The COLB (which you acknowledge he has released, good for you) contains 100% of the information necessary to prove his natural born American citizenship. So again... there is no public interest that outweighs the confidentiality of the original document.