Replies

"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?

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.

It's not obsolete. This shows there's no reason to protect the file number, among other things on the certificates. It also clearly states there are exceptions to 338-18(b). Sorry, but you're flatout wrong. They haven't given everything the law prescribes.

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.

No, the UIPA acknowledges not the limitation but the exception to limitations when outweighed by public interest. It's there in black and white and the example shown in the manual proves it.

A COLB is a self authenticating document.

... IN A COURT OF LAW. On a Web site operated by amateur, incompetent self-declared "fact checkers," not in the slightest. The thing that makes it self-authenticating is whether the court can tell if the seal and signature passes the smell test. Obama's COLB is just like the diapers Obama's mama's friend had to change. Maybe some baby wipes might be in order so you can see what's going on.