Perhaps DOH is counting on Obama being into his second term before any lawsuit gets up to SCOTUS and back! Have you considered the possibility that Obama's legal team has cut a non-public legal agreement with HI DOH as to exactly which data fields on his long form or short form that Obama explicitly authorizes for release?
The privacy law would seem to block them from releasing anything without permission, while you assert that if they releases anything, they must release everything.
But what if there was this private signed legal release from Obama protecting both parties (and DOH from Obama) that covered just certain fields on the long form, such as "location of birth" which is Honolulu, at least on the amended most recent vital record?
In other words DOH wouldn't be required to release all of Obama's long form data fields because DOH wasn't acting under a release by Obama of all of those fields, but just a few that Obama agreed to release.
Would DOH be required to make public any private agreement they made with Obama to limit release to just a few data fields? I suspect not.
If they made such an agreement in writing they would be required to release it when asked for it. Of course, they would never admit to having it in writing.
There is SUPPOSED to be a process whereby the DOH gives a legal verification in lieu of a certified copy. That would allow Obama to ask the DOH to verify his place of birth - nothing else - and they would send a certified verification.
Once again, however, the DOH doesn’t seem to allow for their own rules to be followed. I asked them to show me what they send when someone requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy of their birth certificate and they said they send a certified copy of their birth certificate. I’ve asked to see their policies or procedures which provide for the “verification in lieu of a certified copy” - which is the exact terminology used in their Administrative Rules. Haven’t heard back yet. In fact, they may be past their 2-week deadline to reply to me on that one.
There was a response that John Charlton got from Linden Joesting that referred to the possibility that the DOH couldn’t release information because it would jeopardize federal funding. Interesting, because she didn’t include such statements on her formal response to Terri K’s request.
They’ve been giving the “privacy exemption to disclosure” argument to everything, even though the privacy exemption doesn’t apply to what has already been specifically authorized for disclosure. It could be the real reason they won’t disclose is because Obama snuck in some federal funding threat somewhere - maybe in the presidential orders to put all the czars to work on promoting Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders programs. I was sure that was payback to the crooks covering for him in Hawaii, but if there was a condition attached to it, it could provide legal cover for the crooks in Hawaii.
But that still has to be disclosed.
But if that is why they are withholding information they are required to give that as their reason - rather than hiding behind a reason that doesn’t even apply.