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.
You have your opinion/interpretations and the judges and justices who have ruled on this issue have their opinions/interpretations.
“Never the twain shall meet.”