Yes I can. Unlike you, however, I read everything that is in a statutue. Like most birthers, you appear to only read what you want to hear and ignore what is inconvenient. Case in point:
"An agency may withhold records (1) required to be withheld from the individual by statute or court decision"
Yes, it says records may be withheld because of a court decision. But it also says they may be withheld by statute.
But being a birther, you ignore what you don't want to hear, and so you ignore the statutue part.
And that's a shame, because in the case of Obama's brith records, it is the state privacy statutue, not a court decision, that causes them to be withheld.
And this is true of anyone's birth records, not just Obama's.
Maybe you should read that AGAIN and let it sink in ! !
Talk about projection. You are the one who needs to read it, but this time, don't read it selectively. Read the whole thing, even the part that does not conform to your preconceived notions.
You could be right about that...I did notice the “statute” comment, but since the State has been extremely unaccommodating fulfilling ANY requests re: Obama (even index data), it is a foregone conclusion that BO has had SEVERAL ‘privileged’ communications with the State, which could involve a Court Order or obviously another arrangement whereby they are prohibited from disclosing ANYTHING regarding his vital records.
Further, if you read the statute below you will see that the State is obligated to (”Must always”) release records by virtue of the fact that they made ‘information available to the public’ by Ms. Fukino’s public announcements from last year AND this year.
Agency Records that “Must Always” Be Disclosed (§92F-12)
The Legislature created a list of specific categories of records that must always be disclosed. An exception only applies where it is referred to in that list. These categories of records, in summary, are:
(15) Information collected for the purpose of making information available to the public; (end quote of 92F12-15)
Ms. Fukino’s statement was based on “vital records maintained...by the Health Department” and in issuing such a statement, she is obviously “making information available to the public” as this was a public announcement. The law couldn’t be more clear on this, but again, in direct opposition to the laws governing the right for public access to such information, multiple requests have been REPEATEDLY denied !
Does not this appear to be evidence of egregiously recalcitrant behavior on the part of the State ?
How would you explain this ?