Friday, January 28, 2011

The Two Issues Regarding Obama's Eligibility to be President

The Two Issues Regarding
Obama's Eligibility to be President
by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
There are two open issues regarding whether putative President Obama is eligible to be President. One is place of birth. Consider that in all the law suits filed against Obama and others on the place of birth issue, including the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress law suit (which also argued that regardless of place of birth, Obama is not and cannot be a “natural born Citizen” because he was not born in the United States to a U.S. citizen father and mother), Obama never once produced any birth certificate (neither his Certification of Live Birth known as the COLB nor his long-form, hospital generated Certificate of Live Birth) for the court which would have put an end to the birth place issue. Why did he pursue a legal strategy (e.g. standing, political question, and other justiciability defenses) which only worked in the short term rather than just produce the birth certificate which would finally end the birth place controversy?

Why spend so much private and public money and resources fighting the same issue over and over again? Even now, over two years after the 2008 election, we see the same place of birth issue raised in various contexts. It has risen in the military context with LTC Terry Lakin, who is serving 6 months in federal prison for defending the Constitution by wanting to assure that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” We see it in ObamaCare litigation. Now some states are also moving to require proof of birth as part of a presidential candidate's requirements to get on the ballot. Officials with the National Conference of State Legislatures report that 10 states already have some sort of requirement to prove eligibility. There is Arizona's HB2544, Connecticut's SB391, Georgia's HB37, Indiana's SB114, Maine's LD34, Missouri's HB283, Montana's HB205, Nebraska's LB654, Oklahoma's SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529. With Texas' 34 votes, these states possess 107 Electoral College votes. .

Hawaii Governor Abercrombie has recently revived the birth place issue, vowing to find the birth certificate and put an end to the debate. But we have seen that he found no birth certificate.

So, there is no end to the issue of Obama’s place of birth. Should we not blame Obama himself for this issue still existing? After all, the Constitution says that he must be a “natural born Citizen.” Is not the burden on him to satisfy that requirement?

Why has Obama allowed this issue to continue unabated? Why have all the Department of Justice attorneys repeatedly taken the same approach in defending Obama, i.e., fighting jurisdiction (standing) and raising any other justiciability defense? Why have they fought so hard to prevent any litigant to have discovery so that a copy of the birth certificate could be obtained? Why have they to this day never produced a copy of any birth certificate in any court which would have put an end to the birth place issue not only in that court but in all other courts present and in the future?

While the courts have not been too kind to the "birthers," why has not one court even mentioned the fact that not one court in the whole nation has yet to see Obama’s alleged birth certificate?

We even have had an Indiana court in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), declare that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” But the court never even raised the issue that there was no proof before the court that Obama was "born within the borders of the United States." In fact, the Ankeny court, while dismissing the plaintiffs' case, never ruled that Obama was "born within the borders of the United States." Nor did it rule that he was a "natural born Citizen."

How can a modern and advanced nation such as the United States, a leader of the free world, a model for constitutional republican government, find itself in such a situation? We have been debating the issue of Obama’s place of birth publicly and in the courts for over 2 years and we as a nation still do not know with any reasonable degree of certainty whether Obama was born in the United States. The place of birth issue is not a conspiracy issue, but rather only one demanding conclusive proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.

But apart from the place of birth issue, we also have the question of whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen." Assuming that he was born in Hawaii, does Obama meet the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen?" The Framers' constitutional scheme, historical evidence (e.g. Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations, Section 212), and U.S. Supreme Court precedent (e.g. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) show that the American common law definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" has its basis in natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. That definition, which to this day has never been changed, is a child born in the country (or equivalent such as being born abroad to parents in the service of their nation) to a U.S. citizen father and mother.

There is no factual dispute that when Obama was born in 1961, wherever that may be, he was born to a father who under the British Nationality Act of 1948 was a British subject/citizen and that Obama himself by descent from his father was born a British subject/citizen. Not only was Obama's father not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born, but his father never became a U.S. citizen nor was he even ever a domiciliary or permanent resident of the United States.  These undisputed facts show that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen."

So, there are two open issues: was Obama born in Hawaii and if he was, is he an Article II "natural born Citizen." Assuming that Obama runs for re-election, how will our nation address these issues in the 2012 presidential campaign and election? Will Congress, other political institutions, the media, and candidates exhibit political and moral courage and tackle these issues once and for all or will they like so many others have done just turn a blind eye to the Constitution and the rule of law and continue with business as usual?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 27, 2011
Updated February 1, 2011

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Gov. Abercrombie Tells Hollywood Journalist/Radio Host Mike Evans There Is No Obama Hawaii Birth Certificate

Click the Usurper Image to See the Catalog of Evidence
Hollywood celebrity journalist/radio host, Mike Evans, has known now Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, for decades. He first met the Governor when the Governor was driving a cab in Honolulu, Hawaii. They became good friends. They spent a lot of time together in Washington during the time of Obama’s inauguration. Abercrombie told Evans then that he was going to run for Governor of Hawaii. He also told Evans that he remembered Obama as a child and that he used to call him Barry. He told him that once he became Governor, he was going to put an end to the story that Obama was not born in the United States by getting a copy of his birth certificate.

Abercrombie did become Governor and using his powers as Governor, he did look for the document. On January 19, 2011, Abercrombie told Evans during a telephone conversation that he searched everywhere for the birth certificate. He told him that he went to the only
Recognize Reality Bob.  Obama is NOT a natural born Citizen
two hospitals that existed in Honolulu at the time at which a baby could be born, Kapi’olani Women’s and Children’s Hospital and Queen’s Hospital. Abercrombie told him that there is no Obama birth certificate in Hawaii and that there is absolutely no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. Abercrombie also told Evans that he remembered Obama playing in a tee-ball league when he was about 5 or 6 but not before that. A confirmation of this information can be heard on a recording of an interview on the radio 92 KQRS Morning Show done on January 20, 2011. During this radio show, Mike Evans, recounts the details of his conversation he had with Governor Abercrombie just the day before.

A story on this new revelation and the radio interview can be heard at . A full bio on Mike Evans can be seen at .

On January 20, 2011, former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams signed an affidavit in which he swears that his supervisors in Hawaii told him that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Obama. He swears that he was also told that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi'olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any medical record showing that Obama was born in either facility. Read more: Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate

The question now is if Abercrombie has not been able to find any Obama Hawaii birth certificate, why did he tell the public that he was abandoning his search for it because privacy laws prohibit him from disclosing the document?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 25, 2011


Saturday, January 22, 2011

Questions to Ask Hawaii Governor Abercrombie About Obama’s Alleged Long-Form Birth Certificate

The Hawaii Five-O Question of the Century
News sources have reported that Hawaii will not release Obama’s long-form birth certificate despite Governor Abercrombie’s recent efforts to show the “birthers” that they are wrong to have doubts about whether Obama was born in Hawaii.  See APNewsBreak: Hawaii won't release Obama birth info. The story reports that Governor Abercrombie now says that he is giving up trying to get Obama's birth certificate because privacy laws prevent him from getting a copy. We'll, did we not all already know that? It was believed that since the Governor was such a good friend of Obama and his parents and that he wanted to put an end to the birth certificate saga, he was going to be able to impress upon Obama to do the right thing and give consent for the release of the document. That sure would have made both the Governor and Obama look good. But now we are full circle and back to square one.

What is not understandable is what is private about the President's birth certificate? Obama allegedly already posted in 2008 on the internet his alleged Certification of Live Birth (COLB). Those wanting the release of the long-form birth certificate are only interested in seeing what birth hospital and delivery doctor are listed on the document. Obama already told us he was born in Honolulu in Kapi'olani Medical Center. So where is the privacy concern?

And that is not even considering that the President cannot expect to have any reasonable expectation of privacy in a document which he needs to prove that he meets the "natural born Citizen" eligibility requirement of Article II.

On this latest development, Dr. Kate’s insightful article, Too Late, Abercrombie, is recommended reading and can be accessed at her blog at .  Dr. Kate correctly observes that first Abercrombie suggested that the birth certificate does not exist and now tells us that he cannot release the document to the public because of privacy laws, thus giving the false impression that the birth certificate does in fact exist but simply cannot be released.

We know that Abercrombie has stated publicly that he found some type of notation in the Hawaii state archives of Obama's birth. See my previous article on this entitled,  In Search of the Holy Grail of Documents -- The Obama Birth Certificate , which can be accessed at .  Here, he might be playing games with the public given that index data of Obama's birth in Hawaii is already known and a non-issue, and he could be playing stupid about that.  Of course he will not tell us whether it is index data that he was referring to in his statement about finding some notation of Obama's Hawaiian birth in the state archive. The fact that such index data does exist provides cover and justification for what he said about some notation in the state archive.  Then from such safe grounds, Abercrombie goes further and tells everyone that he cannot release the birth certificate because of privacy laws, again giving the false impression that one exists even though former Hawaii Chief Elections Clerk, Timothy Adams, has told the world that no such birth certificate exists and that he would so testify in a court of law.  From this latest revelation by the Governor, it follows that he did not first consult with Obama (or did he?) regarding his quest to find his birth certificate, for given the current Hawaii official position regarding the need for his consent, Obama would have probably simply told him at first as he apparently is telling him now that he was not consenting to the release even if Abercrombie could find the birth certificate. 

Given this duplicitous state of affairs, I have some simple questions for Governor Abercrombie:

• Apart from whether or not the alleged long-form birth certificate can be released to the public, does such a document in fact exist?

• Does the paper version of the alleged Certification of Live Birth (COLB) which Obama’s campaign allegedly posted on the internet in 2008 for public consumption in fact exist?

• If the alleged long-form birth certificate does in fact exist and the law would have allowed you to release it to the public, and given that you did not consult with Obama prior to your quest to find and release that document to the public, would you have done so over Obama's objection?

• Since Obama has already released to the public his alleged 2008 COLB, can you simply release to the public an officially authenticated paper version of that document?

• If you would not have released the alleged long-form birth certificate to the public over Obama's objection, then what were you attempting to accomplish by searching for the document?

• Since finding out that privacy laws prevent you from releasing the alleged long-form birth certificate to the public, have you asked Obama for his consent to the release of the document to the public? If you have not, why not?

Answering such questions does not involve releasing the alleged long-form birth certificate to anyone. Our national media should be asking Governor Abercrombie these questions rather than allowing him to escape from properly addressing this issue of critical national importance and at the same time to mislead the American public while doing so.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 22, 2011

Friday, January 21, 2011

In Search of the Holy Grail of Documents -- The Obama Birth Certificate

We know that Hawaii Governor, Neil Abercrombie turned Indiana Jones, said on Tuesday, January 18, 2011, that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. He told Honolulu's Star-Advertiser: “It actually exists in the archives, written down.” But what he discovered is an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate. In the same interview, Abercrombie suggested that Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate may not exist within the Hawaii Department of Health’s vital records that it maintains on file. He added that efforts were still being made to prove Obama was born in Hawaii by locating definitive vital records. Read more at:

What is amazing is that with such earth-shattering revelations, many of Obama’s supporters still say that the “birthers” are racists, bigots, and conspiracy nuts.

How difficult could it be for the Governor of a state to find a birth certificate within the official records of his own state? First, Americans obtain and produce them everyday for a sundry of reasons. Second, if the hunt for the birth certificate is like looking for and finding the holy grail of documents, how did the Hawaii Department of Health prepare Obama’s alleged Certification of Live Birth (COLB) which was allegedly prepared in paper form in 2007 and whose alleged image was posted on the internet in 2008? Why has Hawaii to this day not confirmed that the internet COLB was prepared by its health department and that the document is in fact real?

Where did the Hawaii Health Department get all the information that is allegedly stated on the COLB if the only record of Obama’s birth is “an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate?”

During the 2008 election, Hawaii's Director of Health, Chiyome Fukino, said: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have 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. No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii."

Months later, in July 2009, she added: "I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago." Note that Fukino said in her first statement that she saw and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Obama’s “original birth certificate.” But how do we explain now that Governor Abercrombie says that such a birth certificate might not exist.

On October 26, 2008, WND reported that “it had learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed Obama’s birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.” The Governor’s office even declined to provide WND with a copy of the document. So what happened to the birth certificate that former Governor Lingle placed under seal?

On May 2, 2010, in a radio interview with New York’s WABC radio, former Governor Lingle even said: "So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it's again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this." So again, what happened to that birth certificate that the health director personally viewed?

Why has Governor Abercrombie in his defense of Obama and in his search for Obama’s birth certificate not talked about the COLB or even attempted to get a paper copy of it? After all, if Obama had no problem with his campaign staff having it in their hands and others taking pictures of it, why can he not put that same document in the hands of his life-long friend, Governor Abercrombie?

If it is true as is suggested by Governor Abercrombie that Obama’s long-form birth certificate might not exist, why did the Hawaii Department of Health never reveal that information to the American people? Why did no one from the Hawaii Department of Health or Election Office come to the defense of Timothy Adams, the Chief Elections Clerk in Honolulu during the 2008 Presidential Election, who was viciously attacked by Obama’s supporters and the media for saying just that?

Section 338-5 of the Hawaiian statute provides: "§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents. The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1]."

If Obama was born in a hospital as he claims, we cannot reasonably believe that his birth certificate would have been completed and filed by one of his parents. Additionally, under Section 338-5, Hawaii has the power and authority to obtain medical records from Kapi'olani Medical Center to confirm Obama's alleged Hawaiian birth. If no long-form birth certificate exists, one would think that Hawaii would have taken additional steps to make sure that Obama was born there before making any announcements to the American public that he in fact was born there. At no time did Hawaii inform the American public that it in fact confirmed with that hospital that Obama was in fact born there which it can do under the cited statute. Hawaii has withheld this underlying evidence from the public. This withholding of evidence is a grave matter given that there exists such reasonable doubt as to whether Obama, the putative President and Commander in Chief of our military, was in fact born in Hawaii.

Why does Governor Abercrombie not use the powers given by Section 338-5 to the State of Hawaii to obtain the medical records from Kapi'olani Maternity Ward (now called Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children) in Honolulu, Hawaii, where Obama says he was born and which would conclusively prove he was born there on August 4, 1961?

If Governor Abercrombie is so sincere and such a good friend of Obama and his parents, why can he not just call Obama on the phone and ask him to help him out? He can even ask Obama to get a copy of his and his mother’s medical records from Kapi'olani Medical Center.

In short, should it be that difficult for Hawaii Governor Abercrombie to locate Obama’s long-form birth certificate in the records of the Hawaii Health Department or otherwise confirm with medical records from Hawaiian hospital, Kapi’olani Medical Center, that Obama was born in that hospital? Who are we kidding here?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 20, 2011

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Ad: Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States - 24 & 17 Jan 2011 Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 5

Ad: Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States - 24 & 17 Jan 2011 Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 5.

Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance at Birth - by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Obama is not Article II constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander of our military. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama's father was NOT a U.S. Citizen. Obama's father was not an immigrant to the United States. Obama's father was a foreign national, a British Subject. Obama is the child of an alien father who was sojourning in the U.S. attending college. Obama was born a British Subject via his father and is still such to this day. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.

Also, two U.S. Senators although popularly elected and sworn in to the U.S. Senate were subsequently removed from office after it was learned that they were NOT constitutionally eligible when they were elected.
Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:
James Shields [U.S. Senator seating unconstitutional and annulled]:

Thus it is very clear that winning a popular election does not trump or nullify the constitution of a state or the U.S. federal constitution. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the military and should be removed from office and his election, confirmation, and swearing in annulled.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Please if you can, visit this site and help the cause
to increase public awareness of this issue:

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: