Do you understand the part about how the DOH can only deny access to a record that exists? If they say they deny access to a record it is a confirmation that the requested record exists.
If you click on the hyperlinks in the page I gave you it shows Terri K’s request for receipts for fees Obama paid to amend his birth certificate and Okubo’s response - a denial of access, which is an admission that the requested records exist.
See, this is why the Hawaii DOH can get away with this crap. It’s couched in layers of legal-speak that most people aren’t interested in enough to pursue it.
There’s no way they’re gonna come out and say, “Hey! Obama’s got an amended birth record that ain’t worth doo-doo legally speaking and what he’s shown the world is actually a forgery that we refuse to report!”
They’re going to couch it in legal terms nobody can understand and then HIDE the Administrative Rules which would help people know what they just said.
But there it is. They confirmed that Obama amended his birth certificate.
Sorry, but that looks like pretty thin gruel to me. You're assuming the DOH spokesperson always follows protocal exactly, something which bureaucrats seldom do in my experience. Never attribute malice to what can be explained by plain sloth or incompetence.
Look at it from the DOH's point of view. Terri K sent a long, rambling email asking for a laundry list of minutia, not just the receipts. Most likely the DOH spokesperson looked at it, saw that the documents either did not exist or they were not allowed to release them, decided she had better things to do than to parse through the email, and replied with a "request denied."
To read into that a confirmation that an amendment was made is a pretty large stretch, to say the least.
Especially, per your own admission, the DOH later explicitly denied that there are any amendments to the record.