Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: EnderWiggins
Oh? You didn't? Actually, yes you did. And here were your exact words: "There's virtually ZERO limitations (pun intended)."

Is this your first day reading?? What you quoted was in reference to part D of HRS 338-18. There are no limitations expressed in the specific part of the statute. Later we were discussing the Uniform Information Practices Act (a different law), which grants exceptions to any laws that have limitations (the UIPA covers MORE than HRS 388-18). I understand you're either confused or you're trying to blur my comments. I'll take all the time you need to understand.

Again... it's not "Part D." It's "Paragraph D." The limitations for all of Part 18 can be found in Paragraphs A & B.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. I cited the opinion letter that shows where Part D is not covered by anything in Part B. It was very explicit.

No. It is my learned opinion that you still are completely clueless as to what constitutes "public interest." The public actually has an interest (and not a prurient one) concerning the job performance of a senior official. They have no equivalent public interest in the name of the hospital where that public official was born or the name of his attending physician.

Absolutely wrong again. HRS 338-18 very clearly acknowledges that birth records ARE of public interest by allowing information to be made available to the public in Part D and in other parts of the statute. See Part G section 3: "A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;" ... notice how a vital event can have direct bearing on an employment situation ... exactly the reason such records are sought from Barry Soetoro.

Only to somebody who does not understand what "public interest" means.

You have an errant "not" in your sentence. Evidently words aren NOT your strong suit.

But you have so much more than you deserve.

Zero does not = "much more"

2,398 posted on 03/04/2010 3:22:44 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2397 | View Replies ]


To: edge919
Look... we're not going to get anywhere here. You are convinced that the Director of the Hawaii DOH is some sort of transcendent über-Authority with vast Cosmic powers capable of ignoring any and all privacy laws at her whim and caprice.

I am equally certain that they actually have to obey the law.

So, our going back and forth on this yet again helps no-one. All I can add is that the Directer herself appears to agree with me, and the OIC has explicitly told butterdezillion that the DOH is right.
2,399 posted on 03/04/2010 3:33:58 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2398 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson