[curiosity]

That’s because a standard denial, without the Glomarized response, is a confirmation of the record’s existence. Otherwise, why add the “if any”?

LOL. So the birther argument now hangs on the fact that some Hawaiian bureaucrat forgot to write "if any" when denying some crank's request for documents.

It's sad that you people can't see how absurd you look.

[BP2]

It's sad that you people can't see how absurd you look.

Apply your pity to the foolish and gullible After-Birthers like yourself who TRUST the Chain of Custody
of a "document" given BY a LIAR TO partisan hacks, then TO MORE partisan hacks, to then
be accepted BY LIARS Nancy Pelosi and the DNC to certify the Constitutional Eligibility of their candidate.

To the few dull-witted people like yourself who still don't get it,
here are some pictures to aid in your comprehension:

From to to by

ALL of whom had custody of a "birth certificate" which has NEVER
actually appeared in Court to be accepted by a Judge as a "FACT".

Now move along, Coco ... snack-time is over!

It's sad that you people can't see how absurd you look.

Apply your pity to the foolish and gullible After-Birthers like yourself who TRUST the Chain of Custody
of a "document" given BY a LIAR TO partisan hacks, then TO MORE partisan hacks, to then
be accepted BY LIARS Nancy Pelosi and the DNC to certify the Constitutional Eligibility of their candidate.

To the few dull-witted people like yourself who still don't get it,
here are some pictures to aid in your comprehension:

From to to by

ALL of whom had custody of a "birth certificate" which has NEVER
actually appeared in Court to be accepted by a Judge as a "FACT".

Now move along, Coco ... snack-time is over!

It's sad that you people can't see how absurd you look.

Apply your pity to the foolish and gullible After-Birthers like yourself who TRUST the Chain of Custody
of a "document" given BY a LIAR TO partisan hacks, then TO MORE partisan hacks, to then
be accepted BY LIARS Nancy Pelosi and the DNC to certify the Constitutional Eligibility of their candidate.

To the few dull-witted people like yourself who still don't get it,
here are some pictures to aid in your comprehension:

From to to by

ALL of whom had custody of a "birth certificate" which has NEVER
actually appeared in Court to be accepted by a Judge as a "FACT".

Now move along, Coco ... snack-time is over!

[edge919]

It’s a pretty bad mistake to make if it ends up failing to protect somebody’s privacy rights. I would think the DOH or any state agency would be very careful how they respond to requests for protected records, especially things like adoption records.

[butterdezillion]

You’re not processing, curiosity. Nobody “forgot” anything. The response was double-checked by the director of the OIP, whose specific task was to find out if the answer was correct.

He said it was.

Give up the “It was a mistake” mantra. On two different requests - both checked for accuracy and appropriateness by the OIP - an amendment and/or original certificate completed via supplementary documents was confirmed. And they have stood by that answer for 6 months now - even as it’s been posted publicly that this confirms that Obama’s BC is not prima facie evidence.

They’re changing laws to try to get rid of “vexatious requestors”. It’s not like they don’t know what is being said. When there have been mistakes in their reasons in the past they have corrected them. Not so on either of these crucial requests.

Furthermore, within the past week my understanding has been further supported from inside the Hawaii government, although we’ve decided not to post that communication in order to protect the innocent.

It is not me who looks stupid.