LTC. Terry Lakin Sentenced

CAAFLOG ^ | December 16, 2010 | Christopher Mathews,

[Vendome]

Thanks. I was looking at some Paypal charges last night and couldn’t figure out what the descriptor “TERRYLAKINA” was.

You might send a blast to everyone so they will know what to expect.

Merry Christmas and lets try to retire his debt by June when he will be a free man, God willing.

Is there a way to track the goal?

[sometime lurker]

You claimed these laws would make the disclosure of Obama's records illegal and I've shown specically why that's wrong.

Actually, no, you're misquoting me. Go back and read the posts. This whole exchange with Butter started because she claimed the HDOH was breaking the law. My opinion was that the HDOH rules seemed to say one thing, and the 1977 statute seemed far more protective of the data, and it would take a lawyer (or maybe several) to sort out what should be followed. In that circumstance, I wasn't surprised that the HDOH was following the more restrictive language of the statute.

We're talking about ONE certificate. Who is going to challenge the DOH over the disclosure of this one certificate or the information from it?? Be specific. Support your belief on this.

Very simply, if the DOH treated this ONE certificate this way, they then must treat ALL certificates this way, or they create a precedent and possibly face a charge of unequal treatment. 338-13 (b) doesn't have an exception for "the person is really famous," or "the person has already released some of the information." If they release an uncertified copy of Obama's certificate, they have little argument for protecting an uncertified copy when someone asks for a copy of Nicole Kidman's certificate, or John Doe's from down the street. Bureaucratically speaking, you can't change the rules on what you will release for ONE person.

I've responded point by point and rebutted everything of substance you've posted.

Er, no. You have tried to make "public interest" mean what you want it to mean, instead of what the UIPA clearly states - meant to improve Hawaiian government accountability. You have not in any way shown how releasing one person's certificate reflects on the accountability of a Hawaiian state agency.

As for the data you want, first you cited the 1990 opinion letter as allowing the data to be released. When I pointed out that letter was based on the statute as it existed in 1990, and has since been changed so it no longer lists that data as allowed you change to pointing out it isn't specifically prohibited. Interestingly, the legal opinion letter from 1990 refers repeatedly to the Model State Vital Statistic Regulations and points out that Hawaii's law is patterned on the model law. Note his reference on page 7 to "Regulations adopted under this section shall provide for adequate standards of security and confidentiality [emphasis added] of vital records. "

Bottom line here is I was never arguing that releasing the data was illegal. I was pointing out that NOT releasing it is not illegal. If you think it is illegal not to release, you need stronger evidence than "the director has discretion what to release."