Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: MHGinTN

Read it again .. and all the comments, questions and his responses. Should clarify things.


19 posted on 09/27/2009 10:14:24 AM PDT by STARWISE (The Art & Science Institute of Chicago Politics NE Div: now open at the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: STARWISE; Danae
As far as I can tell, re-reading clarifies nothing beyond what I posted. Leo is erroneously praising a staff lawyer who has remained solidly on the side of the DOH restricting access, against state previous OIPA procedures.

At the end of the letter from Linden H. Joestring, staff attorney, whom Leo is so positive about, we find the following continuing misdirection/obfuscation:

The DOH has taken the position that any related documents are also covered by the statute’s restrictions. This is based on the statute’s wording that no disclosure, inspection or copy of “all or any part of any record” is permitted except as authorized by the statute. … The statute restricts access only to those who stand in a specific relationship to the person whose record is requested. … The DOH’s interpretation of the UIPA and section 338-18, H.R.S. are correct.

53 posted on 09/27/2009 4:11:47 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Dems, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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