Wednesday, December 31, 2008

OBAMA HAS NOT MET HIS BURDEN OF PROVING HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII

By now, many of us know about the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that Obama posted on the internet in June 2008 as proof that he was born in Hawaii. This document was touted by fightthesmears.com and factcheck.org as sufficient proof that he was born in Hawaii. Later on we learned about Hawaiian law in effect at the time of Obama's birth that allowed parents or guardians of babies born in a foreign country to register the foreign births in Hawaii and to receive a COLB as evidence of that registration. We also learned that only the original Certificate of Live Birth (BC), issued by the birth hospital, provides, among other things, the name of the hospital where a baby was born and the name of the attending physician that delivered the baby. We learned that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (a state agency that happens to detail the difference) states:

"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."

After learning this information many concerned Americans had doubts about whether the COLB was sufficient proof that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. But apart from the lax Hawaii law, there is another important point to understand about the COLB.

If one reads the document, one will see that at the bottom it states: "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding." file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/HP_Administrator/My%20
Documents/Obama/Birth%20Certificate%20Fight%20the%
20Smears%20Obama%20birth%20certificate.htm. The important words here are "prima facie evidence." "Prima facie" is a Latin phrase meaning "on its first appearance" or "by first instance." It is evidence which is adequate, if not invalidated, to confirm a particular intention or fact. It is evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted. A prima facie case may be insufficient to enable a party to prevail if the opposing party introduces contradictory evidence. In other words, it basically means that on the face of it or on the surface there is enough evidence to prove the alleged fact, unless and until the alleged fact is contradicted.

What does all this mean? Obama has presented his COLB has proof that he was born in Hawaii. That document itself states that it is only "prima facie" evidence of that fact. As we have seen under the definition of "prima facie," the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented. When evidence contradicting the alleged fact is presented, the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact. If he fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence.

Many concerned Americans have provided the public domain with evidence which contradicts the COLB's statement that Obama was born in Hawaii. They have presented the following: the existence of the lax Hawaiian law that existed at the time Obama was born which allowed parents to register their foreign born babies in Hawaii; Hawaii requires the original birth certificate to prove that one is a "native" Hawaiian which easily justifies concerned Americans requiring Obama to produce his original birth certificate to prove he is a "native" American; Obama's grandmother's statement that her grandson was born in Kenya and that she was present during that birth; the Kenya Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008 during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF's "Mike In the Morning," that "President-Elect Obama" was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a "well-known" attraction; the conflicting statements of Obama and his sister concerning in which Hawaiian hospital he was born; the failure of any Hawaiian hospital to confirm that Obama and/or his mother were present in any such hospital at the time of Obama's alleged birth in Honolulu; Director of Hawaiian Department of Heath, Fukino, said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," but she failed to say that the certificate shows that Obama was born in Hawaii; fightthesmears.com's and factcheck.org's current silence on the issue; the lack of any other corroborating document showing that Obama was born in Hawaii; the refusal of Obama to release for inspection his past documents (college and law school records and passports) which would shed some light as to where he was born; the failure of Obama to declare publicly after his COLB has been put into question that he was born in Hawaii; and Obama relying on state privacy laws to block the release of a certified copy of his birth certificate. This mountain of contradictory evidence is sufficient to cause the prima facie presumption of the COLB to fall. Obama therefore now has the burden to come forward with competent evidence to prove that he was born in Hawaii. To date, he has failed to come forward with that evidence. Hence, under these circumstances, how can the American people in good faith conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii which makes him a "natural born Citizen" and therefore eligible to be President? How can Obama in good conscious take the oath to be President on January 20th when so many Americans have put forward all this contradictory evidence regarding where he was born and he refuses to come forward with any other convincing evidence (like a certified copy of his original birth certificate) showing that he was born in Hawaii? Obama should do the right thing for everyone's sake and produce the evidence of where he was born.

(c) Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

"the existence of the lax Hawaiian law that existed at the time Obama was born which allowed parents to register their foreign born babies in Hawaii"

Where, specifically, in Hawaiian law does it allow a foreign-born child to receive a COLB that lists the place of birth as "Honolulu"?


"Obama's grandmother's statement that her grandson was born in Kenya and that she was present during that birth"

Hearsay. And her statement wasn't under oath.


"the Kenya Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008 during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF's "Mike In the Morning," that "President-Elect Obama" was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a "well-known" attraction"

Hearsay. And his statement wasn't under oath.


"the conflicting statements of Obama and his sister concerning in which Hawaiian hospital he was born"

Probably hearsay. And her statement wasn't under oath. Also, confirms rather than disproves that Obama was born in Hawaii.


"the failure of any Hawaiian hospital to confirm that Obama and/or his mother were present in any such hospital at the time of Obama's alleged birth in Honolulu"

Absence of evidence is not evidence (does not disprove validity of COLB; e.g., where is the statement from any hospital denying that Obama was born at that hospital?).


"Director of Hawaiian Department of Heath, Fukino, said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," but she failed to say that the certificate shows that Obama was born in Hawaii"

Absence of evidence is not evidence (does not disprove validity of COLB). Also, William of Ockham is turning in his grave: What Hawaiian "state policies and procedures" allow/compel Hawaii to retain a birth certificate issued elsewhere?


"fightthesmears.com's and factcheck.org's current silence on the issue"

No duty to speak. And absence of evidence is not evidence (does not disprove validity of COLB).


"the lack of any other corroborating document showing that Obama was born in Hawaii"

No corroboration required. And absence of evidence is not evidence (does not disprove validity of COLB).


"the refusal of Obama to release for inspection his past documents (college and law school records and passports) which would shed some light as to where he was born"

No duty to release. And absence of evidence is not evidence (does not disprove validity of COLB).


"the failure of Obama to declare publicly after his COLB has been put into question that he was born in Hawaii"

No duty to speak. And absence of evidence is not evidence (does not disprove validity of COLB).


"Obama relying on state privacy laws to block the release of a certified copy of his birth certificate."

No duty to release. And absence of evidence is not evidence (does not disprove validity of COLB). Also factually misleading: When, specifically, has Obama affirmatively relied upon Hawaii's privacy laws?


And one more that you (thankfully) did not list (but added, for the sake of completeness): Experts have concluded the COLB posted online is a forgery.

Opinions of anonymous experts are inadmissible. (Sandra Ramsey Lines' declaration is inconclusive.)

Puzo1 said...

To Anonymous writer:

I maintain that Obama has not met his burden of proof that he was born in Hawaii. First, I would like to remind you that we are not yet in a court of law but in the court of public opinion. At this stage, the rules of evidence do not strictly apply, provided that the factual assertions have some reasonable basis in fact. Until discredited with likewise reasonable evidence, the assertions stand. Also, from your response, it appears that you have added to your defense arsenal. Not only do you hide behind privacy laws but now the rules of evidence. What I would like for you to put in that defense arsenal and which would immediately bring this war to an end is some simple credible and sufficient documentary evidence showing where Obama was born.

Next, I asked that Obama come forward with corroborating evidence to support his COLB. I have adequately shown that there is sufficient evidence in the public domain which causes the "prima facie" quality of that document to fail. From your response, it becomes even more clear that Obama has failed miserably to provide that evidence. Obama has no evidence to support his position and rather he is just hiding behind privacy laws, a wall of secrecy, and now the rules of evidence. Regardless of how you want to spin this matter, enough members of the public have provided sufficient evidence that the "prima facie" validity of the COLB must fail. As you see and as you know, there is no additional corroborating evidence. Hence, Obama fails to meet his burden of proving that he was born in the U.S. Chief Justice Roberts cannot swear him in as our next President and he should not be allowed to do so, for he would be committing a Constitutional violation by swearing in a person who has not adequately shown the public that he is Constitutionally eligible to be President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Anonymous said...

First off, thank you for not disputing specifically any of the points regarding your so-called “evidence.” This is a concession that you have, in fact, no evidence to discount the validity of the COLB.


“First, I would like to remind you that we are not yet in a court of law but in the court of public opinion.”

In the “court of public opinion,” you lose, badly: the vast majority of Americans (and the world) couldn’t care less about this issue. In the “court of internet nutters,” you win. In what size do you wear a tinfoil tiara?


“At this stage, the rules of evidence do not strictly apply, provided that the factual assertions have some reasonable basis in fact.”

Even assuming that you get to make up the rules as you go along, *none* your assertions have a “reasonable basis in fact.” Rather, you repeatedly point to a dearth of corroborating evidence. To quote Carl Sagan, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

The only two “facts” you affirmatively state are the statements by Obama’s grandmother and Ambassador Ogego. In that order:

“Bishop” McRae (try doing some research on that character), via a translator via a transatlantic call (to a cell phone!), sandbagging an elderly woman. This “reasonable basis in fact” is the best you’ve got? “Lost in Translation” wasn’t just a movie starring Scarlett Johansson. Obama’s COLB, by itself, entitles him to obtain a driver’s license, passport, etc.; a transatlantic call to a cell phone, placed by a “street minister,” to Obama’s grandmother speaking via an interpreter, would entitle him to obtain bupkis.

As for Ambassador Ogego, he repudiated the implication from that radio station’s interview. See http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82060 . (It is funny how the WND tries to spin his statement that he “doesn’t know where Obama was born.” Why would Ogego? His lack of personal knowledge on the subject is not evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii.)


“Until discredited with likewise reasonable evidence, the assertions stand.”

As you mainly point to merely an absence of evidence, you are demanding for a negative to be disproven, which, you must know, is impossible.


“Not only do you hide behind privacy laws but now the rules of evidence.”

Huh? Who is hiding behind privacy law? Obama? Again, please specifically detail where he personally has affirmatively invoked a privacy law.

As for the rules of evidence, “the court of public opinion” can’t invalidate the election (nor, would they: recent, scientific polls show Obama presently enjoys a favorable rating). The federal courts will surely follow the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the very, very, very unlikely event that there is an objection during Congress’ count of the electoral votes, some sort of evidentiary rules will likely be used there, because do you really think Congress would disqualify Obama on the basis of something that was said on the internet?

In other words, while rumor, gossip, and idle speculation may be acceptable to you, the grownups who will actually decide these matters are going to want something more substantial.


“What I would like for you to put in that defense arsenal and which would immediately bring this war to an end is some simple credible and sufficient documentary evidence showing where Obama was born.”

COLB. QED.


“Next, I asked that Obama come forward with corroborating evidence to support his COLB.”

Ignoring the egotistical hyperbole of “you asking Obama” (really?, when did you personally ask him?), why should he? To paraphrase the “famous” Robert Stevens, he is not your monkey, and you do not pay him to work. A few ankle biters may not be satisfied with his COLB, but most people are. Or do want a president frozen into inaction by trying to placate every last whiner?


“I have adequately shown that there is sufficient evidence in the public domain which causes the "prima facie" quality of that document to fail.”

No. You pointed to the absence of evidence, a statement (since repudiated) by the Kenyan ambassador, and a literal game of telephone. This may be “sufficient evidence” in your mind, and in the little minds of your little internet friends, but the rest of world has long since moved on to other, real issues.


“From your response, it becomes even more clear that Obama has failed miserably to provide that evidence.”

Even more clear to who? To you? Who appointed you Chief Judge of All Things on the Internet? Obama has provided his COLB, and for most people (including the members of Congress), that is sufficient.


“Obama has no evidence to support his position and rather he is just hiding behind privacy laws, a wall of secrecy, and now the rules of evidence.”

You are repeating your lies again. When has Obama hidden behind anything? All Obama has done is pointed out the federal courts’ lack of jurisdiction to hear Berg’s case (because Berg lacks standing), and then moved on to the real business of getting ready to govern this country. Do George Bush, Dick Cheney, etc. go out of their way to affirmatively disprove every frivolous lawsuit filed against them? (One would think — and hope — not.)


“Regardless of how you want to spin this matter, enough members of the public have provided sufficient evidence that the "prima facie" validity of the COLB must fail.”

“Enough” members? Really? How many is “enough”? Who says what is enough? And how much is “sufficient” evidence? Who says what amount is sufficient? Don’t pat yourself too hard on the back for attaining the arbitrary benchmarks that you yourself established.


“As you see and as you know, there is no additional corroborating evidence.”

One more time: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And there is corroboration: the statements by Hawaiian officials are corroboration (it defies logic and common sense to read something into them other than their plain, everyday meaning). The birth announcements in the newspapers are further corroboration. For the vast majority of Americans, this is sufficient. For the tiny minority that refuses to concede defeat, it is abundantly clear *no* amount of evidence will *ever* be sufficient. Which is, I would say, why Obama doesn’t pander to your whims and produce his “vault” certificate, passport, school records, library card, etc. — just by trying to play your game, he loses.


“Chief Justice Roberts cannot swear him in as our next President and he should not be allowed to do so, for he would be committing a Constitutional violation by swearing in a person who has not adequately shown the public that he is Constitutionally eligible to be President.”

Until ordered otherwise by a constitutionally competent body (i.e., Congress or the judiciary), Obama will be the next president. Your foot-stamping notwithstanding.

December 31, 2008 9:02 PM

First off, thank you for not disputing specifically any of the points regarding your so-called “evidence.” This is a concession that you have, in fact, no evidence to discount the validity of the COLB.


“First, I would like to remind you that we are not yet in a court of law but in the court of public opinion.”

In the “court of public opinion,” you lose, badly: the vast majority of Americans (and the world) couldn’t care less about this issue. In the “court of internet nutters,” you win. In what size do you wear a tinfoil tiara?


“At this stage, the rules of evidence do not strictly apply, provided that the factual assertions have some reasonable basis in fact.”

Even assuming that you get to make up the rules as you go along, *none* your assertions have a “reasonable basis in fact.” Rather, you repeatedly point to a dearth of corroborating evidence. To quote Carl Sagan, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

The only two “facts” you affirmatively state are the statements by Obama’s grandmother and Ambassador Ogego. In that order:

“Bishop” McRae (try doing some research on that character), via a translator via a transatlantic call (to a cell phone!), sandbagging an elderly woman. This “reasonable basis in fact” is the best you’ve got? “Lost in Translation” wasn’t just a movie starring Scarlett Johansson. Obama’s COLB, by itself, entitles him to obtain a driver’s license, passport, etc.; a transatlantic call to a cell phone, placed by a “street minister,” to Obama’s grandmother speaking via an interpreter, would entitle him to obtain bupkis.

As for Ambassador Ogego, he repudiated the implication from that radio station’s interview. See http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82060 . (It is funny how the WND tries to spin his statement that he “doesn’t know where Obama was born.” Why would Ogego? His lack of personal knowledge on the subject is not evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii.)


“Until discredited with likewise reasonable evidence, the assertions stand.”

As you mainly point to merely an absence of evidence, you are demanding for a negative to be disproven, which, you must know, is impossible.


“Not only do you hide behind privacy laws but now the rules of evidence.”

Huh? Who is hiding behind privacy law? Obama? Again, please specifically detail where he personally has affirmatively invoked a privacy law.

As for the rules of evidence, “the court of public opinion” can’t invalidate the election (nor, would they: recent, scientific polls show Obama presently enjoys a favorable rating). The federal courts will surely follow the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the very, very, very unlikely event that there is an objection during Congress’ count of the electoral votes, some sort of evidentiary rules will likely be used there, because do you really think Congress would disqualify Obama on the basis of something that was said on the internet?

In other words, while rumor, gossip, and idle speculation may be acceptable to you, the grownups who will actually decide these matters are going to want something more substantial.


“What I would like for you to put in that defense arsenal and which would immediately bring this war to an end is some simple credible and sufficient documentary evidence showing where Obama was born.”

COLB. QED.


“Next, I asked that Obama come forward with corroborating evidence to support his COLB.”

Ignoring the egotistical hyperbole of “you asking Obama” (really?, when did you personally ask him?), why should he? To paraphrase the “famous” Robert Stevens, he is not your monkey, and you do not pay him to work. A few ankle biters may not be satisfied with his COLB, but most people are. Or do want a president frozen into inaction by trying to placate every last whiner?


“I have adequately shown that there is sufficient evidence in the public domain which causes the "prima facie" quality of that document to fail.”

No. You pointed to the absence of evidence, a statement (since repudiated) by the Kenyan ambassador, and a literal game of telephone. This may be “sufficient evidence” in your mind, and in the little minds of your little internet friends, but the rest of world has long since moved on to other, real issues.


“From your response, it becomes even more clear that Obama has failed miserably to provide that evidence.”

Even more clear to who? To you? Who appointed you Chief Judge of All Things on the Internet? Obama has provided his COLB, and for most people (including the members of Congress), that is sufficient.


“Obama has no evidence to support his position and rather he is just hiding behind privacy laws, a wall of secrecy, and now the rules of evidence.”

You are repeating your lies again. When has Obama hidden behind anything? All Obama has done is pointed out the federal courts’ lack of jurisdiction to hear Berg’s case (because Berg lacks standing), and then moved on to the real business of getting ready to govern this country. Do George Bush, Dick Cheney, etc. go out of their way to affirmatively disprove every frivolous lawsuit filed against them? (One would think — and hope — not.)


“Regardless of how you want to spin this matter, enough members of the public have provided sufficient evidence that the "prima facie" validity of the COLB must fail.”

“Enough” members? Really? How many is “enough”? Who says what is enough? And how much is “sufficient” evidence? Who says what amount is sufficient? Don’t pat yourself too hard on the back for attaining the arbitrary benchmarks that you yourself established.


“As you see and as you know, there is no additional corroborating evidence.”

One more time: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And there is corroboration: the statements by Hawaiian officials are corroboration (it defies logic and common sense to read something into them other than their plain, everyday meaning). The birth announcements in the newspapers are further corroboration. For the vast majority of Americans, this is sufficient. For the tiny minority that refuses to concede defeat, it is abundantly clear *no* amount of evidence will *ever* be sufficient. Which is, I would say, why Obama doesn’t pander to your whims and produce his “vault” certificate, passport, school records, library card, etc. — just by trying to play your game, he loses.


“Chief Justice Roberts cannot swear him in as our next President and he should not be allowed to do so, for he would be committing a Constitutional violation by swearing in a person who has not adequately shown the public that he is Constitutionally eligible to be President.”

Until ordered otherwise by a constitutionally competent body (i.e., Congress or the judiciary), Obama will be the next president. Your foot-stamping notwithstanding.

Puzo1 said...

To Anonymous:

I do not understand why you make this thing so difficult. There is no need to cut and slice each word put forward by someone just asking that Obama tell the public who he is. The matter is rather very simple. He just puts forward a couple of simple pieces of paper like anyone Presidential candidate would do to reasonably satisfy the public that he is eligible to be President. I do not understand what is so difficult in that to understand. All your quotes, all your literary references, all your logic, and all your tinfoiling is not going to make this go away. You better just realize that and face reality. If you do not know what the reality is, I will tell you. It is running for President of the United States and having enough common sense to know that people expect such a person to tell them a little about himself. I cannot fathom that Obama would think that it should be any other way. If he thinks otherwise, then I really question his good judgment. End of story. So you can run off and spin this thing some more. You can go off and tell the world about how a little old grandmom was taken advantage of and how that poor fellow, the Ambassador, was manipulated. But that is not going to cut it. If you want this thing to end, just do the right thing and produce the docs. That little jester will make millions of Americans go home (but not all).

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Anonymous said...

"There is no need to cut and slice each word"

It highlights each of your many errors when explaining why you are so very wrong.


"put forward by someone just asking that Obama tell the public who he is."

Obama did, the vast majority were satisfied by the answer, and they have moved on. That a person of power does not cater to every squawker is unsurprising. What part of that is unclear to you?


"He just puts forward a couple of simple pieces of paper like anyone Presidential candidate would do to reasonably satisfy the public that he is eligible to be President."

The COLB reasonably satisfied the vast majority. Your lack of satisfaction is unreasonable. What part of that is unclear to you?


"All your quotes, all your literary references, all your logic, and all your tinfoiling is not going to make this go away."

I can understand how you despise logic, as it defeats all of your claims. (And those living in tinfoil houses shouldn't be throwing stones.)

But you are right; it is Congress and the courts that will make this all go away (eventually you will get tired of repeatedly hearing "case dismissed"). Oh, you all will still be free to chatter on Internet, and sign petitions or mail letters or whatever busy makework you can find for yourselves. But the rest of us will be working on actual problems facing the country.


"You better just realize that and face reality."

Ironic Statement of the Day.


"It is running for President of the United States and having enough common sense to know that people expect such a person to tell them a little about himself, like where he was born."

And that was done. What part of that is unclear to you?


"You can go off and tell the world about how a little old grandmom was taken advantage of and how that poor fellow, the Ambassador, was manipulated."

Just pointing out that your *entire* house of cards is built upon a game of telephone (that will never see the light of a courtroom) and a repudiated statement from someone who has no first-hand knowledge. You have no reasonable basis in fact to believe in what you do, yet you persist. And yet you people wonder why members of Congress send you (very polite) "get lost" notes in response to your barrage of demands?


"If you want this thing to end, just do the right thing and produce the docs."

*I* have no documents that can be produced, so *I* can't make you happy. But the vast majority are satisfied by what Obama has produced. What part of that is unclear to you?


"That little jester [sic] will make millions of Americans go home (but not all)."

You may believe this, but few others do (especially the "millions of Americans" part ... that is laughable). These "show me the docs" campaigns are motivated by a hatred of Obama, and that will never stop. The "I would support Obama if he would just release his birth certificate" is about the hollowest lie there is. It is no coincidence that all these birfer sites can't help but accuse Obama every crime possible (real or imagined), attempt to link him any and every scandal in the news, and are calling for his impeachment before he has even been inaugurated. It is permanent opposition hiding under the veneer of "just respecting the constitution"; don't think you are fooling anyone.

It is abundantly clear that the dissenters will never, ever be satisfied. Knowing this, it is actually very reasonable for Obama to ignore the unsatisfiable, and instead focus on the future rather than be stuck in the past, like you so obviously are.

Puzo1 said...

To My Anonymous Friend:

You do not understand what burden of proof means and who has that burden in this Election. Obama has the burden not me. He wants to be President, not me.

As far as how many people care about Obama's arrogance, why do you not check the AOL poll (unscientific). Here is a link: file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/HP_Administrator/My%20Documents/Obama/Poll%20results%20AOL%20issue%20of%20Obama%20eligibility%2012-31-08.htm
Hence, I really doubt that "the rest of the world has long since moved on to other , real issues."

The grandmom and the Ambassador is a dead horse. You lose.

On the privacy laws, Obama knows that Hawaiian officials say they cannot provide the public documents or even information because of privacy laws. It does not matter that he may not have told them (we do not know that to be the case) to use the privacy laws to protect his information. The simple point is once he heard the officials take that position, he could have easily given his consent for the release of the documents and information. Remember, McCain released his birth certificate to the world. This is a very easy point to grasp and I hope you are up to the challenge.

As far as the "grownups" (your contemptuous words) deciding this matter in a court of law, that is exactly what MILLIONS of Americans are waiting for. To be complete, these Americans want the court to decide the issue on the underlying merits, and not on threshold questions (jurisdiction, standing, justiciability, political question, etc.)which only lead to avoiding truly deciding the issue. Hopefully the lawyers and pro se litigants present the proper case (both factually and procedurally) to the courts so that the judges will be able to rule on the underlying merits.

On the COLB, that document is not going to get you home, my friend. It is only "prima facie" evidence of a birth event which is evident from reading the disclaimer on the document itself. Query: why does the document have such a disclaimer? What could possibly go awry by relying only on that document that the warning had to be placed on it? To be President of the United States, you have got to do better than that, especially when MILLIONS of Americans have doubt about the sufficiency (and some the authenticity) of the document.

How ironic that you say that I am "egotistical" for asking Obama for credible and sufficient proof of his Hawaiian birth. It is ironic because you fail to see that it is Obama that is the one who is egotistical, arrogant, and audacious in not providing that information to the people from whom under our Constitution he gains his legitimacy to be President and his "pay . . .to work."

You say that Obama has done nothing wrong in arguing to the Court that it has no jurisdiction because Attorney Philip Berg has no standing. Now, Obama is a politician and nothing more. Hence, he should have enough commons sense regarding how politics work. I cannot imagine that he would lack the experience to know that if he decides to put up blocks to revealing information regarding his true identity, that that alone will cause people to ask and continue to ask questions about why he is not willing to disclose that information (where there is smoke there is fire phenomena). I believe I have the answer. Obama is more willing to risk those repurcussions than he is to show the world what is on his original birth certificate. I do not know what is on that document, but I do know that there must be something on there that Obama does not want the world to know or he has just played a little game here, giving his opponents enough rope to persecute him and then in the end winning the game and thereby uplifting his stature in the eyes of the world.

Regarding your comment, "[h]ow many is enough" to put into the public domain evidence to contradict Obama's prima facie" case of where he was born, as far as I am concerned, you only need one person. It is not a mater of the quantity of the evidence but rather the quality thereof, a standard espoused by the collective intelligent of our courts.

About the birth announcement in the newspaper, do you really think that the newspaper had the time or resources to go checking if the information it received was correct? Try again and if you do take me up, then provide me information that shows what type of checking process the newspaper went through.

About your comment that the "tiny minority" refuses to concede defeat, Obama has only won some major battles so far, but he has still to win the war. You know that there is a big difference between the two.

Finally, the "foot-stamping," either now or in the future, will not stop until Obama produces the docs.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Anonymous said...

"You do not understand what burden of proof means and who has that burden in this Election."

I do know what it means. Obama won the election; a majority of the found him to be the best qualified candidate. The election results are the proof he met his burden.


"As far as how many people care about Obama's arrogance, why do you not check the AOL poll (unscientific). Here is a link: file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/HP_Administrator/My%20Documents/Obama/Poll%20results%20AOL%20issue%20of%20Obama%20eligibility%2012-31-08.htm"

I can't check you documents on your computer, especially with that broken link.

But here at actual site:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-certificate/

Notice how there's only 108,000 responses. Out of a country of 300+ million. Do the math. (And don't forget that the number of votes is meaningless, as it easy enough to stuff AOL's ballot box.)


"Hence, I really doubt that "the rest of the world has long since moved on to other , real issues.""

The silence is rather deafening. To even find people still talking about this silly issue, you've got to search pretty hard on the fringes of internet.


"The grandmom and the Ambassador is a dead horse."

Agreed! Made-up facts for a claim not grounded in reality.


"It does not matter that he may not have told them (we do not know that to be the case) to use the privacy laws to protect his information."

The point, actually, is you lying. Obama has never invoked these laws despite your claims otherwise.


"The simple point is once he heard the officials take that position, he could have easily given his consent for the release of the documents and information."

What part of "by playing your game, he loses" is unclear? Ever hear the phrase "once biten, twice shy"?


"Remember, McCain released his birth certificate to the world."

And Obama released his COLB, which satisfied all but you hanger-oners.


"As far as the "grownups" (your contemptuous words) deciding this matter in a court of law, that is exactly what MILLIONS of Americans are waiting for."

What millions? Again with the lies.

Grownups will adjudicate these cases. By tossing them out.


"To be complete, these Americans want the court to decide the issue on the underlying merits, and not on threshold questions (jurisdiction, standing, justiciability, political question, etc.)which only lead to avoiding truly deciding the issue."

What Americans may "want" is irrelevant; the courts are duty bound to follow the law as estabished by the U.S. Constitution and statutory law. Which is what they are doing by dismissing these cases.


"Hopefully the lawyers and pro se litigants present the proper case (both factually and procedurally) to the courts so that the judges will be able to rule on the underlying merits."

Good luck with that. You've got no facts, and the lawyering has been laughable.


"On the COLB, that document is not going to get you home, my friend. It is only "prima facie" evidence of a birth event which is evident from reading the disclaimer on the document itself."

There's been nothing to dispove the COLB, so it does, in fact, drive the issue home.


"Query: why does the document have such a disclaimer? What could possibly go awry by relying only on that document that the warning had to be placed on it?"

It isn't a warning; quite the opposite. It says, rather plainly, it alone is sufficent evidence. Unless rebutted (which hasn't happened in this case), it alone is good enough.


"To be President of the United States, you have got to do better than that,"

Please specifically site the federal constitution section, statutory law, or regulation that supports this statement.


"especially when MILLIONS of Americans have doubt about the sufficiency (and some the authenticity) of the document."

Again with "millions." Stop the lies.


"How ironic that you say that I am "egotistical" for asking Obama for credible and sufficient proof of his Hawaiian birth."

You were egotistical because you said you had asked Obama for further proof. It is egotistical because you actually never made such a request to Obama; it requires excess ego to think a vanity blog constitutes a reasonable method of making such a request.


"It is ironic because you fail to see that it is Obama that is the one who is egotistical, arrogant, and audacious in not providing that information to the people from whom under our Constitution he gains his legitimacy to be President and his "pay . . .to work.""

He did provide it. COLB; try to keep up.


"Now, Obama is a politician and nothing more."

He's President Elect, soon to be the president. (Or is that just a politician, no?)


"I cannot imagine that he would lack the experience to know that if he decides to put up blocks to revealing information regarding his true identity, that that alone will cause people to ask and continue to ask questions about why he is not willing to disclose that information (where there is smoke there is fire phenomena)."

In this case, where's there's smoke is little kids playing with matches. Your use of a cliche -- instead actual facts -- is proof of how laughable these claims are.

Try imagining this: Obama decided you kooks didn't warrant the attention. Obama decided there would be no politicial downside you ignoring you. And guess what: He was right.


"but I do know that there must be something on there that Obama does not want the world to know"

Actually, you don't know that. Yet more idle speculation.


"Regarding your comment, "[h]ow many is enough" to put into the public domain evidence to contradict Obama's prima facie" case of where he was born, as far as I am concerned, you only need one person. It is not a mater of the quantity of the evidence but rather the quality thereof, a standard espoused by the collective intelligent of our courts."

And the collective intelligence of our courts has indicated that no one person WITH STANDING has raised a claim demonstrating a violation of the law.


"About the birth announcement in the newspaper, do you really think that the newspaper had the time or resources to go checking if the information it received was correct?"

No. Do you really someone submitted a fake birth announcement? On what evidence (other your desire to really, really, really not see Obama in the White House)? The birth annoucements are corroboration; independent evidence that validates the COLB.


"Try again and if you do take me up, then provide me information that shows what type of checking process the newspaper went through."

YOU try again. If you are going to assert that the birth annoucements are fake, it is up to you prove that they are.


"About your comment that the "tiny minority" refuses to concede defeat, Obama has only won some major battles so far, but he has still to win the war. You know that there is a big difference between the two."

Spoken exactly like a tiny minority refusing to concede defeat. He won the election. None of these lawsuits have succeeded. Seems like a resounding victory. To quote Journey, "Don't stop believing."

And your Very Deep Thoughts aren't "the war." Your opinion on Obama is obvious enough; that will never change. But for the rest of us, this issue is all but over. Try being objective just once.


"Finally, the "foot-stamping," either now or in the future, will not stop until Obama produces the docs"

Please waste your time and energy (and money) on something totally nonproductive. You are getting out of those try to be productive, and for that I thank you. But I suggest you find a better hobby.