Replies

Hawaii courts have consistently ruled that your interpretation of their disclosure laws is incorrect.
There is just no way around the fact that every single judge that has had this issue before him or her, from district court to appellate court panels to the state Supreme Court to the federal district court has ruled unanimously that you are wrong.
For example, in Wolf v. Obama, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled that the provisions of UIPA do not take precedence over the requirements of HRS 338-18’s categories of persons considered to have a direct and tangible interest in gaining access to a confidential birth record.

WILLIAM WOLF, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LORETTA FUDDY, in her official capacity as Director of the Department of Health, State of Hawai`i, Defendant-Appellee.

Plaintiff-Appellant William Wolf (Wolf) timely appeals from (1) the “Final Judgment as to All Claims and All Parties,” which was entered on April 25, 2012 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court)1 in favor of Defendant-Appellee Loretta Fuddy (Fuddy), in her official capacity as Director of the Department of Health (DOH), State of Hawai`i, as to Wolf’s claims that he is entitled to access all birth records of President Barack Hussein Obama, II (President Obama); (2) the April 25, 2012 “Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Filed on December 20, 2011;” and (3) the January 27, 2012 “Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Complaint to Compel Agency to Disclose Public Records Under the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA), Filed on September 30, 2011.”
Wolf argues that the Circuit Court erred in dismissing his complaint and denying his motion for summary judgment because (1) Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 338-18 does not bar access to an individual’s birth records when that individual waives his or her right to confidentiality; (2) the Hawai`i Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) (Modified), HRS § 92F, provides for access by Wolf to the requested records based on the statute’s rules of construction and purpose; and (3) the federal constitution prohibits any state law or state action which denies or obstructs access to a current president’s birth records.

(1) As acknowledged by Wolf, the plain text of HRS § 338-18 (2010 and Supp. 2012) prohibits the DOH from disclosing President Obama’s birth records to Wolf because he does not fit into any of the provision’s enumerated categories. The statute sets forth a general rule that vital statistics records may not be disclosed except to individuals who have a direct and tangible interest in the records. HRS § 338-18; Justice v. Fuddy, 125 Haw. 104, 109, 253 P.3d 665, 670 (App. 2011); see also Haw. Op. Att’y Gen. OIP Opinion Letter No. 90-23, 1990 WL 482371, at *2 (June 28, 1990). It then affirmatively grants the right of access to certain categories of individuals who, by their status, are considered to have direct and tangible interest in the documents. HRS § 338-18. These provisions do not discuss any right or privilege that the registrant can “waive” such that the general public becomes entitled to access the registrant’s records. Rather, they create an affirmative right of access in certain categories of individuals. Thus, a waiver of the registrant’s right created by the statute would merely relinquish the registrant’s own right of access to the record. Therefore, President Obama’s public disclosure of his birth records does nothing to loosen the strictures of the statute. Accordingly, the court rejects Wolf’s argument that HRS § 338-18 does not apply to bar his access to the requested birth records.
[Excerpted]
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20HACO%2020130531218

Hawaii courts have consistently ruled that your interpretation of their disclosure laws is incorrect.

Sorry, but you haven't shown this at all. I already told you the Justice lawsuit involved a strange appeal. It would has nothing to do with my interpretation of the disclosure laws. The Orly case was denied on a procedural objection to the service of the subpoena, which again, is not related to my interpretation of the law. You've provided NOTHING to support your claim based on YOUR interpretation of the law that the DOH would cooperate if a court order was signed by a judge. Under federal law, the subpoena only needs to be signed by a clerk, and consequently, the DOH did NOT object to who signed Orly's subpoena, so YOUR interpretation is not supported in your examples. Your new example is still not based on my interpretation of the disclosure laws. I have never said that Obama's posting of his PDF waived a right to privacy that would compel the DOH to release his original vital records. The UIPA doesn't mandate disclosure, but it does ALLOW for voluntary disclosure. This means that the DOH doesn't have to abide by 338-18 if there is a public interest. Disclosures can be made in good faith.