Sunday, January 9, 2011

Atty Mario Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner were Guests on Les Naiman Show, WGTK 970, Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, Sunday 09 Jan 2011 7:05 PM EST

Les Naiman Show

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) were featured guests on the Les Naiman radio show, WGTK 970 in Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, on Sunday, 09 Jan 2011, 7:05 PM EST.

Listen to a replay of the show on podcast at this link.  Fast forward to the 63 minute point in the show where Atty Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner join the show:  http://lesnaimanshow.podbean.com/2011/01/09/the-les-naiman-show-010911/

20 comments:

bdwilcox said...

MissTickly was asking if Mario attained a 'verification' of the info on Obama's COLB from the Hawaii DOH.
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/verification-is-certifcation/

MichaelN said...

Left this message for MissTickly.

MissTickly.
Further to your plight, which I strongly support.

Are you aware that a Hawaiian COLB is NOT 'considered for all purposes the same as the original' i.e. according to HRS 338-13?

As you will see, there are three optional forms that the HDoH 'shall' issue, but not all options are equal in legal 'potency'.

(a)'a certified copy of any certificate'
(this must mean an image copy)

or

(b)Copy of 'the contents of any certificate'
(this must mean ALL the 'contents' reason being, the mention of 'part thereof')

or

(c)'any part thereof'
(which must mean a part of the ALL)

It is ONLY a copy of 'the contents of any certificate ON FILE in the department' that 'SHALL be considered for all purposes the same as the original'
(a copy of the contents can ONLY mean (a) the image copy or (b)a copy of ALL the contents.

The COLB aka, a 'part thereof' is clearly excluded, other wise there would be no need for paragraph (c) of the statute.

Furthermore a COLB is NOT a 'certificate ON FILE in the department'.

Hope this helps.

Hawaiian Revised Statute.
Quote:
§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

MichaelN said...

Further to my last post.

A 'certificATE' is what is held 'on file in the department'

A 'certificATION' is what is issued, based on the 'certificATE'

Ergo: a 'certificATION'can NOT be a 'certificATE', the 'certificATION' is NOT a 'certificATE' held on file.

Puzo1 said...

Miss Tickly,

While its statement is neither correct nor dispositive of the issue, the Hawaii Department of Health has already publicly "verified" that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a “natural born Citizen.” Whatever I may ask that department, it would not tell me anything different. It surely is not going to release to me any copy of any birth certificate or provide me with any protected information without a court order. And no one is getting a court order without standing.

Also, I did not obtain any information about any vital event “during the course of or for purposes of any legal proceedings.” Hawaii Statute 338-18(g)(4). The purpose of Hawaiian statutes Sec. 338-14.3 and 338-18(g)(4) is to allow a private or government attorney who has a pending law suit during the course of which he or she acquires information about a birth which is the subject of a birth event record or obtains information about that birth which is the subject of a birth event record which information had been released to him or her for purposes of existing legal proceedings, to verify whether that information is correct. First, I did not obtained any such information “during the course” of the Kerchner case. In fact, because the courts found no standing, there was never any information obtained during the course of the pending case. We surely did not obtain the COLB computer image during our litigation. Everyone knows the COLB was posted on the internet for public consumption well before we filed our lawsuit. Second, no such information was ever released to me “for purposes of legal proceedings.” Again, we know that Obama released his COLB well before any law suits were even filed. The release of that computer image was for public consumption during an election campaign and not for “purpose of legal proceedings. In short, all information about Obama's birth was obtained as a result of a political campaign and public investigation and comment, and not “for purposes of legal proceedings.”

If all a private attorney had to show to obtained a verification of Obama's birth certificate was that he or she obtained information about Obama’s birth from the public domain and now wants to either bring or defend a law suit about it, every attorney could obtained protected birth information without ever filing or defending any law suit. Such a result would be contrary to the purpose of Sec. 338-18 which is to provide private birth information only to those persons who have "a direct and tangible interest in the record." That interest is created only if an attorney already "acquired" birth information during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings and he or she needs to verify that information for the sake of those legal proceedings. The "direct and tangible interest" does not exist simply because an attorney wants to acquire such information in the future. In such cases, the attorney will have to file a legal action and engage in discovery to obtain that wanted information. And discovery will not be allowed unless the attorney shows that his or her client has standing. Some limited discovery could be allowed to help a plaintiff show that he or she has standing.

In short, given the existing state of affairs, these statutes are of no help in digging up the truth about Obama’s place of birth.

Finally, bringing these matters to the attention of the eligibility attorneys should be done before litigation is started or during the time it is pending, not after it is terminated.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

8by8 said...

Dr. Ron Polland said...
Two videos that answer, "On the other hand?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7nwdWZu1VA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB5o1cmiCjo

January 9, 2011 3:02 PM

js said...

MissTicly was working with Leo Donofrio before on this...i think he dropped it...

Its a shame we have to go through this mess. It costs 15 dollars for a copy of a birth certificate. The document itself is a historical document, demonstrating that the President of the United States, duely elected, is a citizen and eligible to serve in the office he holds. The fact that the DNC, Congress, and the President himself have used constitutional powers to deny this document from the public realm is an insult the very constitution that these critters claim they defend, but instead is an evasion of thier duty to uphold the very same constitution, and instill confidence in the public for thier right to hold the very power that they are entrusted with by the public.

The Stacker said...

The only way is to get someone to rat him. Someone knows ... there is a way to get the smoking gun.

The question has always been, are you willing?

I told you nearly 7 months ago that the courts wouldn't work ... the way to get him is IN Hawai'i ...

MichaelN said...

Correction of my last post.

I wrote in error:
"The COLB aka, a 'part thereof' is clearly excluded, other wise there would be no need for paragraph (c) of the statute."

I should have written:

"The COLB aka, a 'part thereof' is clearly excluded, otherwise there would be no need for clarification in paragraph (b) of the statute of which certified documents are good for all purposes."

If 'a part thereof' is included as good for all purposes then (b)of the statute would read something like:

"(b) Certified copies shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18."

mountaingoatshoes said...

Mr. Apuzzo: I disagree that HI DOH has verified a Hawaiian birth...in fact Fukino said that she holds vitals on file which state that, but those vitals are in all likelihood the application (HRS 338-17.8) which allows foreign borns to claim Hawaiian births, and she made certain to butcher the correct term and say "natural born American citizen".
As pointed out, he has a "certification" which was sent based on his application, which was filed, and this is the origin of Fukino's statement. And the certification only establishes the "fact of birth" not the facts of birth, which means he was indeed born...it does not establish where or when or of whom.

And remember that Lakin and Tickly have both established that the seal is a forgery, so therefore is the entire document.

Even Lingle says she spoke to Fukino who says she saw a vital which says BHO was born in Hawaii...they've been careful to parse words to disown direct testimony. Even Abercrombie says "I was here when that baby was born"...well so was everyone everywhere over the age of 50.

The other point is that though required by law, the HI DOH has steadfastly refused to verify the COLB...they can't as it's a total forgery.
It appears that BHO filed for his HI COLB which he obtained, forged some more, applied a forged seal, then used as a certificate. His application was the basis of Fukino's statement.

Puzo1 said...

mountaingoatshoes,

I did not say that the Hawaii Department of Health "has verified a Hawaiian birth." To correctly restate what I said, you have to consider my whole statement and not just pick words out of it and attribute those words to me. What I said is:

"While its statement is neither correct nor dispositive of the issue, the Hawaii Department of Health has already publicly ‘verified’ that Obama was born in Hawaii and that he is a ‘natural born Citizen.’”

Note that first I said that I did not agree with the statement and also that the statement is not dispositive. Second, I also was careful to put the word verified in quotations thus, "verified," which is consistent with my saying that I do not agree with the statement, that the statement is not dispositive, and that Hawaii has only said that it verified Obama's birth but has not demonstrated it.

As to the rest of what you wrote, my position is stated in my essay entitled, A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii, which can be found on this blog at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html .

As to the Hawaii Department of Health refusing to verify the COLB, as I have explained above, I agree, and I have been saying that for some time. I also state so in my Catalog essay. To avoid any confusion regarding the meaning of the words, “refusing to verify,” the term means refusing to demonstrate or even at a minimum refusing to publicly say that the COLB is authentic as it allegedly existed in paper form (if ever it did) or as it has been presented on the internet. Again, that COLB was never actually produced in physical paper form in any court of law or for the purpose of any legal proceedings by Obama himself or anyone acting on his behalf. Rather, with the judicial branch of government’s blessings, Obama and his supporters simply relied on standing and other justiciability issues to get most of the eligibility cases dismissed, thereby blocking the plaintiffs from ever conducting any discovery which would allow a plaintiff to discover all the relevant particulars of the alleged COLB (whether in paper or electronic form) and of Obama’s contemporaneous 1961 birth certificate which would contain, among other corroborating evidence, the name of the birth hospital and delivery doctor.

I hope this clarifies for you what my position has been and continuous to be.

Let us move forward said...

A California Law professor's opinion on the definition of 14th Amendment Citizenship has been published in today's printed issue of the WSJ. It can be viewed online at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576074271181826688.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLEThirdBucket

His Letter to the Editor is directed towards the children of illegal migrants issue.

By Prof. Eastman's analysis, Barack Obama would not have been considered even a 14th Amendment citizen at the time the 14th Amendment was written and ratified.

Mr. Obama has more than a reelection political stake in "solving" the illegal immigration problem. No wonder the Hispanic areas of DC outdid the Black areas during the 2009 Inauguration Celebrations.

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama will not be successfully challenged and removed from office on his citizenship status. Such an action would allow international questioning of all official acts by his administration, including acts of US combat troops fighting the ongoing wars under an illegal Commander-In-Chief. (This explains the snuff out reaction of the Pentagon to Lakin's challenge.)

Somehow the public's view of the citizenship requirement for the Presidency must be narrowed. Discussions of the original meaning of the 14th Amendment may play a key role in the process.

Robert said...

Mr. Obama has publicly stipulated to facts that preclude him from meeting our Constitutional requirements for POTUS even if no other evidence is produced.

Any country that chooses to challenge Obama's authority or the legitimacy of his actions can do so at their convenience. We have no argument to present in our defense.

In other words, while other countries (friends and adversaries) may have a basis to hold us to treaties, contracts and agreements signed by Obama (because they can claim ignorance or demonstrate that we knew he was a fraud before allowing his name on the ballots), we have no basis upon which to hold them to the same.

bdwilcox said...

From Conservative Examiner.com:
Exclusive investigation: frantic effort to stop questions on Obama eligibility
"Conservative Examiner can now reveal that 2 websites have been devoted to the singular purpose of maligning, disparaging, and threatening conservatives who wish to discover the truth about Obama's background. Those sites are Politijab and Fogbow. The main players behind the scheme are those with the screen names of 'Foggy,' 'Realist,' and 'Justin.'[snip]
Investigators have also received a copy of the entire membership lists of the groups involved and have discovered that a team of top Democratic attorneys have been working in tandem with the groups to attempt to shut down all talk about the issue of Presidential eligibility as it relates to Barack Obama.[snip]
Conservative Examiner is in possession of the complete membership list of this group. Investigators, including attorneys, are continuing their efforts to discover the full names of the persons behind the screen names.


From:
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/exclusive-investigation-frantic-effort-to-stop-questions-on-obama-eligibility?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Puzo1 said...

The Framers showed that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. No one ever changed that definition. If anyone wants to argue otherwise, the burden is on them to show that someone of authority changed it.

Dixhistory said...

" Puzo1 said...
The Framers showed that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. No one ever changed that definition. If anyone wants to argue otherwise, the burden is on them to show that someone of authority changed it."

Most on here know there is only one way to do that and it's not based on some lacky's opinion.

To me what Mario said is the legal question, the heart of any legal action.

They have invented standing to hide behind.

I think any state Gov. would have standing but not a one in any of our state will do it.

DixHistory

Ted said...

Exploitation — some would say facilitation (but we needn’t go there) — of the Tucson event must be seen in the broader context, which is, Team Obama sees it as absolutely essential to quash efforts by the Arizona State legislature to pass certification of POTUS eligibility requirements to be on the ’12 ballot.

One does not have to be a “birther” or “Art 2 Natural Born Citizen’er” to see the criticality of this for Team Obama. Hence, they’ve needed to change the political climate in Arizona. Tucson DOES that.

bdwilcox said...

Miss Tickly further discusses Hawaiian law in reference to disclosure of Obama's vital records:
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/disclosure-required/

bdwilcox said...

What Obama Has Said about His Own Birth -- By Jack Cashill
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/what_obama_has_said_about_his.html

Puzo1 said...

Someone just sent me this information:

"Judge Orders Pentagon to Find Bush Records Submitted by Cecil 63.115.128.181 (Baird) Indiana on 9/16/04 at 10:23 PM. ( ) 63.115.128.156 By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A federal judge has ordered the Pentagon (news - web sites) to find and make public by next week any unreleased files about President Bush (news - web sites)'s Vietnam-era Air National Guard service to resolve a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by The Associated Press.

U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. handed down the order late Wednesday in New York. The AP lawsuit already has led to the disclosure of previously unreleased flight logs from Bush's days piloting F-102A fighters and other jets.
Pentagon officials told Baer they plan to have their search complete by Monday. Baer ordered the Pentagon to hand over the records to the AP by Sept. 24 and provide a written statement by Sept. 29 detailing the search for more records.

"We're hopeful the Department of Defense (news - web sites) will provide a full accounting of the steps it has taken, as the judge ordered, so the public can have some assurance that there are no documents being withheld," said AP lawyer David Schulz.

White House officials have said Bush ordered the Pentagon earlier this year to conduct a thorough search for the president's records, and officials allowed reporters to review everything that was gathered back in February.

Through a series of requests under the federal open records law and a subsequent suit, the AP uncovered the flight logs, which were not part of the records the White House released earlier this year.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...h_guard_records"

There surely is a lot to think about.

MichaelN said...

Mario.

There maybe some valuable stuff here.

It's an article about how the enemies of US Constitution got a foot-hold.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/