no the idiot from the AG ‘s office Joshua Wisch is saying that and it is not correct...
But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” even to the individual whose birth it records.
“It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.
But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.
First of all, that image of the alleged Obama COLB that was put up on the internet has been proven to be fake, so NO, Obama didn't "fill out a form" to obtain it.
Secondly, the short form bc (COLB) isn't accepted as proof positive of identification by many gov't agencies, and even private institutions. Americans who were born in Hawaii still have to produce their long form birth certs, just like any other Americans. There still must be a mechanism for them to obtain a copy of their long form birth certificate, or they're in a world of hurt.
I was without a valid Texas driver's license for a couple of months, some years back, because the state of Texas accepts ONLY a long form bc as proof of identity.
Now, what if I'd been born in Hawaii, and my long form had gone missing? I'd be screwed, if Hawaii would only give me a COLB.
Idiot!! We don't want it RELEASED, we want it SHOWN!! Stupido!
First off, a woman here at FR requested the long-form Hawaiian BCs for both her husband and son. DOH hassled her but because she had cause (wife,mother) they sent her the documents AFTER CLAIMING IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE!
Hawaiian officials are involved in a huge cover-up.
So, according to Wisch, the person who is the object of the birth in question is not a person with an interest as set out in the Hawaiian statutes? Do I understand that correctly?