However I do admire your psychic ability to intuit how many emails the Hawaii Department of Health gets per month. That’s impressive.
................... LOL do you think I would make such a statement without some knowledge of how many emails they received?
As Dr. Fukino went on to say in her February, 2010 testimony to the Hawaii Senate committee (testimony which was taken under oath): “Hawaii is a ‘closed records’ state, meaning that vital records are available only to those with a direct and tangible interest as defined by statute; hence, they are not subject to disclosure under public records requests.”
If anyone wants to see and examine Obama’s original birth records without his permission, they should get a subpoena. Then the records can be released. Perhaps the Military Judge in the Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin court martial will permit a subpoena to be issued. We’ll all have to wait and see which way Military Judge Colonel Denise Lind goes
......................... I do not believe Hawaii is a completely closed records state despite what they say.
http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/Butterdezillion.htm
....2. The DOH has falsely said that HRS 338-18 prohibits disclosure of government processing records. There are 2 kinds of records -- the records of the vital events themselves, and records of the government’s handling of those records.
Certificates are the record of the vital events. HRS 338-18(a) says that information about the actual birth, death, marriage, and divorce events may only be released according to the provisions set by law or Department of Health rules, thus referring everyone to the DOH Administrative Rules to see how information on actual certificates may be disclosed and to whom. Far from barring "any disclosure" as claimed by the DOH, current Administrative Rules allow a non-certified abbreviated copy of a birth (Chapter 8b, 2.5B), marriage (Ch 8b, 2.8C), or death (Ch8b, 2.6C) certificate to be released to anyone who asks for it. However, a public statement of where someone was born -- such as Fukino’s July 27, 2009 statement about Obama -- is not allowed by the rules (Ch 8b, 2.1A).
All other records are public, except that neither direct viewing nor certified copies are allowed unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest. Non-certified copies, abstracts, and disclosure of information from the documents are not prohibited -- which, according to Hawaii’s "Sunshine Law" (UIPA) means they must be disclosed upon request, except for certain exemptions, such as for information having privacy interest that outweighs the public interest in disclosure: date of birth, gender, and address .
Since a damaging disclosure of records processing was made in September (see #3), The DOH has been denying access to these records by claiming that ANY DISCLOSURE is forbidden.
“LOL do you think I would make such a statement without some knowledge of how many emails they received?”
“I do not believe Hawaii is a completely closed records state despite what they say.”
“....2. The DOH has falsely said that HRS 338-18 prohibits disclosure of government processing records. There are 2 kinds of records — the records of the vital events themselves, and records of the government’s handling of those records.
Certificates are the record of the vital events. HRS 338-18(a) says that information about the actual birth, death, marriage, and divorce events may only be released according to the provisions set by law or Department of Health rules, thus referring everyone to the DOH Administrative Rules to see how information on actual certificates may be disclosed and to whom. Far from barring “any disclosure” as claimed by the DOH, current Administrative Rules allow a non-certified abbreviated copy of a birth (Chapter 8b, 2.5B), marriage (Ch 8b, 2.8C), or death (Ch8b, 2.6C) certificate to be released to anyone who asks for it. However, a public statement of where someone was born — such as Fukino’s July 27, 2009 statement about Obama — is not allowed by the rules (Ch 8b, 2.1A).
All other records are public, except that neither direct viewing nor certified copies are allowed unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest. Non-certified copies, abstracts, and disclosure of information from the documents are not prohibited — which, according to Hawaii’s “Sunshine Law” (UIPA) means they must be disclosed upon request, except for certain exemptions, such as for information having privacy interest that outweighs the public interest in disclosure: date of birth, gender, and address .
Since a damaging disclosure of records processing was made in September (see #3), The DOH has been denying access to these records by claiming that ANY DISCLOSURE is forbidden.”
An inappropriate disclosure or an illegal disclosure by a state official does not void adherence to the letter of the law for further disclosures. What it does is give Obama the right to sue the state for inappropriate or illegal disclosures. He has chosen not to sue.
Anyone who feels that there has been an inappropriate application of the disclosure of records laws in Hawaii can file suit to straighten that issue out. Thus far, to the best of my knowledge, no one has taken that step.
I would think that a conservative constitutional law firm would take on such an issue “pro bono.” I suggest the Landmark Legal Foundation.
http://www.landmarklegal.org/DesktopDefault.aspx