It is not irrelevant. The HDoH ruled that those requests were part of Obama's vital records, plural.
Fukino said the vital records verify he was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen. A receipt cannot verify either. It’s simply irrelevant.
What Fukino didn't say is that all of his vital records verify that he was born in Hawaii. One can have vital records that serve a purpose other than documenting one's birth. The purpose of the receipts (in Danae's case) documents who received copies of her BC. It is not simply irrelevant. The storage of those access requests (receipts) demonstrates the concept of multiple vital records for one person.
She said the vital records verify where he is born and that he is a natural-born American citizen.
Using the words “all” is irrelevant as well. You may as well say, she didn’t say “both” vital records.
She didn’t have to say that either, she already said the “vital records verify...”
Geez.
Records of processing (such as requests to see or amend documents) would be included in HRS 338-01 under the definition of “public health statistics” records. Those are different from “vital records”. (See at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0001.htm )
Look at the difference between HRS 338-18a and HRS 338-18b; the former applies to “vital statistics records”, the second to “public health statistics records”. They are two different things. (See at http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm ).
Multiple OIP Opinion Letters say that records of a legal name change must be public, although the applications for them are considered to have a personal privacy interest and are thus not discloseable. But that is specifically one type of an amendment to a vital record which is required to be public. If records of amendments were considered, themselves, to be a “vital record” then HRS 338-18a would forbid it and the OIP Opinion Letters would have been totally different.
The fact that the OIP has confirmed that legal name changes to a birth certificate must be disclosed to the public blows apart the argument that amendments to BC’s have to be confidential because they are “vital records”.