The latest being:
Usually I can follow what Leo Donofrio is arguing, but this latest foray into Hawaii has left me somewhat baffled. His mistakes are often subtle, but not so here. If I may summarize:
1) Hawaiian law requires that data supporting official statements be made public
2) Dr. Funkino made an official statement saying that she had examined Barack Obama’s vital records and that they show that he was born in Hawaii.
3) Therefore Hawaiian law requires the State of Hawaii to provide copies of Obama’s vital records to the public.
Before looking at the premises, I like to apply a rule of thumb I call the “smell test”. We know that in Hawaii vital records are private; they are protected from disclosure by law (§ 338-18 Disclosure of records HRS_0338-0018.htm). Now if state department of health director Fukino is prohibited by law from disclosing the record, how can she, by making an official statement permissible by law, (disclosure of index data) make herself suddenly not bound by the other disclosure restrictions of the law? When one arrives at an absurd result, it’s time to inspect the validity of the argument.
The first problem with the Donofrio’s argument is that premise 1 is faulty. Real Hawaiian law (and Donofrio quotes it) says that disclosure is not required when it conflicts with privacy provisions. Therefore disclosure laws do not apply in this case.
The second problem is that the information Donofrio wants is not covered by the statue. Donofrio quotes the law: “(15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public” but vital records are not maintained “for the purpose of making information available to the general public” with the exception of very basic information (such as that released to the newspapers resulting in Obama’s birth announcement being printed). Other data, such as the name of the hospital, the name of the doctor and other non-index data, not collected and maintained for public information and is not included under the statute.
The final problem is that the conclusion doesn’t follow the language of the premises. Even if disclosure were required (and it isn’t) only what is necessary to support the public statement need be disclosed, and there is nothing beyond the public statement’s name and birth location that is necessary to support the public statement. So again Donofrio gets nothing beyond the original statement.
The best Donofrio could expect to get out of Hawaii is a copy of the Birth Certificate completely blacked except for the words “Barack”, “Hussein”, “Obama”, “Hawaii” on them.
The State of Hawaii declared certain information should be disclosed and they made an exception in the case of private data, and other statutes prohibit disclosure of specific private data, that is, vital records. Donofrio claims that a state official has the power to override the law and change protected data into unprotected just by writing a note on some letterhead and signing it. That is just silly. “Gotcha” is not a legal principle.
TerriK locked onto 92F-12(a)(15) and applied it to the July 27th press release by requesting all relevant records thereto. It was a very intelligent and savvy analysis, especially for a lay person.
I say, it’s a pretty stupid analysis, particular for a lawyer to shill. It’s a legal argument only a birther could love.
The other silliness from Donofrio is the fantastic belief that anything he turns up in Hawaii could make the birthers change their minds. If Dr. Fukino’s plain statement did not suffice, nothing will.