You are ignoring that the law only forbids disclosures not already authorized by the rules.
As you noted, the rules say in Section 2.1A (emphasis mine):
“Vital records authorized under chapter 338 Hawaiian Revised Statutes are not available for or open to public inspection. Access to the records, including copies or information from them is not permitted ****except as provided by law or regulations the Department of Health may promulgate. ***
So then you look to the law to see what the law permits. And the law (HRS 338-18a) only forbids whatever isn’t already authorized by the rules or laws. The rest of HRS 338-18 applies to direct viewing of the original documents and certified copies so none of it applies to non-certified abbreviated certificates.
The law and rules do not contradict each other.
The independent statements of two different HDOH workers isn’t enough. Instead, I need to find the needle in the haystack, someone’s fulfilled UIPA request for somebody else’s non-certified COLB - a needle which wouldn’t exist in this case because UIPA requests are only required to be kept for 2 years. Two years ago the election was already done. They had already been refusing (for over 5 months by then) to disclose a long-form BC to the registrant, which is a direct violation of UIPA.
What you are saying, then, is that you will never believe, no matter how many HDOH workers say the same thing.
At least we have that straight now.
Here’s the video: http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/some-tropical-truth/
Another post addressing whether the woman ordering the BC on the video was Danae, at: http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/breaking-support-for-my-video-woman-ordering-her-long-form-bc-in-hi/
Butter, I don’t think we’re going to agree on this until I hear from someone who really understands state law. If the statute says you can’t even look at the records without the proper qualifications, then the older rules saying you can have a noncertified copy seem suspect to me - I’d expect the more restrictive statute to be followed. If any of the lawyers would like to chime in, I’d love to hear an opinion. I know when hospitals are faced with what appears to be a conflict, they often err on restricting information, even absurdly sometimes.
As I said, proof that a noncertified COLB was issued between 1977 and 2008 would be very convincing.
Tough task but we are well on our way.
The eligibility issue should have been decided by the Supreme court by now. Its an atrocity of justice that is has not.