It’s possible that the record doesn’t exist. But their response was that they cannot tell me whether it exists.
I have tried to get other non-certified abbreviated certificates and they won’t give anything. They keep saying that HRS 338-18 forbids it.
But the only certificates forbidden for release to anybody are CERTIFIED copies. HRS 338-18a forbids the release of any INFORMATION that is on a birth certificate EXCEPT as authorized by statute or rules. Because the rules authorize the release of non-certified abbreviated copies, HRS 338-18a never even applies to them. It does, however, apply to public statements such as Fukino’s, which violated HRS 338-18a.
HRS 338-18a requires them to release documents and forbids them to make announcements. So the HDOH makes announcements and refuses to release documents.
I asked the OIP whether the HDOH response was correct. I was told that the OIP lets the HDOH decide what the laws and rules mean. So much for the OIP being the watchdog for government transparency.... That is the entire function for the OIP to even exist - to interpret the law and force each department to comply with it.
And that is why I am so adamant that what we have is really the failure of the rule of law. To me this is WAY beyond just Obama. It is a whole system of lawlessness at the most basic, far-reaching levels of government.
Hmm, at least in theory, this would appear to make the OIP vulnerable to a writ of mandamus...
Here is what 338-18a says:
§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
Here's what §338-18b says:
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
Part g says:
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is: (followed by a list that does not include you or me)
I don't see where the State of Hawaii allows "non-certified abbreviated copies", they do however allow, to certain parties with a legitimate interest, to receive verification:
[§338-14.3] Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
(b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
(c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
It looks to me like a verification is not a "non-certified abbreviated copy" of anything, just a statement that something exists and the stated facts about that something are correct.
Perhaps its a misapprehension of the law?