Replies

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 It quotes a version of the statute that is no longer in effect.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.

The only thing that's changed is the default data items. The other items that were dropped from the language weren't specifically restricted from release, especially when at least one item has already been publicly released at brith.

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

There is no information forbidden by release. Information is limited in some applications, but none is strictly forbidden, especially not in 338-18(d). The director has unlimited discretionary authority.

How would you know?

Because I read and comprehend. All you do is deny and come up with painfully contorted outburts.

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.

Wrong. I've shown that it hasn't. You cite one part of the law and ignore the rest. Ignorance is not an excuse to hide the truth.

...100% of the information necessary to prove his natural born American citizenship

It contains information that might have relevance, but only if it can be supported as genuine. Otherwise, people like you would just fall for every counterfeit document that comes along. The DOH refuses affirm the alleged COLB despite having FULL statutory authority to do so. The public interest is massive, tangible and direct. It's time to quit making excuses, twisting the facts and carrying water for a fraud. Demand better from yourself.

"The only thing that's changed is the default data items. The other items that were dropped from the language weren't specifically restricted from release, especially when at least one item has already been publicly released at brith."

And yet you still chose to post an obsolete law rather than the actual current law in the effort to justify demanding more information than DOH has already released. Other than this being a tacit acknowledgment that they have already given you everything the law prescribes, it was bald attempt at deception.

"There is no information forbidden by release. Information is limited in some applications, but none is strictly forbidden, especially not in 338-18(d). The director has unlimited discretionary authority."

Nobody in the entire State Government (let alone the DOH) has "unlimited discretionary authority." They are in fact bound by statute to those limitations enacted by the legislature, and (as we have seen) these limitation are acknowledged in the UIPA regs as well.

"It contains information that might have relevance, but only if it can be supported as genuine.

There you go again... moving the goal posts. Well, I can move them back just as many times as you try to nudge them off the field.

A COLB is a self authenticating document. In the absence of contradictory evidence, it requires nothing else to support it as genuine. And we all know that you have exactly zero evidence to contradict it.

You've had almost two years to come up with some. Where is it?