From your blog, Hawaii’s response was:
“I am responding to your latest e-mails on behalf of Dr. Fukino and the Department of Health.
Section 92F-13, Hawaii Revised Statutes, says that disclosure is not required for government records that are protected from disclosure by state law. Section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is just such a law. It prohibits disclosure of vital statistics records to anyone who does not have a direct and tangible interest in the record. Those persons with a direct and tangible interest are listed specifically in the statute. Under section 338-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, vital statistics records include registration, preparation, and preservation of data pertaining to births and other vital events, as well as related information.
Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it. You have not shown that you have such an interest in President Obama’s birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or any related information.
We now consider this matter closed. We do not plan to respond to further UIPA requests from you for President Obama’s birth certificate or any related information.”
You posted it with this comment:
“As the Office of Information Practices determined on appeal of this response, this is a denial of access to all the records requested, without a Glomar response (“if any” statement) – which confirms the existence of the requested records to which access is being denied.”
I think you are connecting dots that aren’t meant to be connected, particularly with email. I understand you disagree, as is your right. I post it here so others can draw their own conclusions.
For those not familiar with it, BDZ’s blog can be found here:
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/red-flags-in-hawaii-2/
Also see here for more info:
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/joesting-wont-correct-terri-k/
They are denying access on the basis that the requested records are exempt from disclosure because of HRS 338-18.
Later Terri K/Miss Tickly (MT) asked them to clarify which of the records she requested they were denying access to and they said all of them.
OIP Attorney Linden Joesting repeatedly told MT that the HDOH should say if they didn’t have the requested records, and she said in her summary letter to MT that the HDOH had correctly denied access to the records.
There was another instance where then-OIP Director Paul Tsukiyama also denied access to records including supplementary documents to support the birth claims (which would not exist for a standard birth certificate issued by a hospital).
There is much, much more that supports the conclusions I’ve reached than what was posted here. But thank you for posting the link; people do need to look at what’s there and make up their own minds.