I suspect this may be a bit of psy-ops by Apuzzo and Kerchner to create the impression that they don’t take it seriously. It seems too obvious to me that the footnote and reference to the 1982 statute could have been added later. Amendments and corrections are to be made to the face of the document in the file per the statute.
At this point, it is not Apuzzo and Kerchner or Hemenway and Hollister that matter, but D’Onofrio and the Chrysler dealers. p>
D’Onofrio was in the dual citizen-only camp claiming that non-US birth was CT, but he suddenly became extremely interested in the birth location a few months ago. Going back to last March Apuzzo and D’Onofrio were aligned briefly against trying to gain release of Obama’s HI BC:
D’Onofrio quoted from The Right Side of Life:
“I contacted Mario after both reading his pleadings in the Kerchner v. Obama case, and listening to his interviews. I was impressed by the level of detail his pleadings brought forth. The intelligence and passion for the Constitution shown by Mr. Apuzzo and his plaintiff, Mr. Kerchner, were evident in the interviews they have given. They both recognize that the main issue is centered on Obama being a British Subject and that the birth certificate issue, while important, is ancillary to Obamas admission that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed his birth status regardless of whether he was born in Hawaii.”
Hmmm...D’Onofrio’s interest in Obama’s BC may well have started at about the same time this Blaine BC appeared! Could the Blaine BC, provided to D’Onofrio by Charlton, have inspired D’Onofrio’s sudden interest in the HI vital record index?
In my expectation, Hemenway’s Law 57 request for judicial notice, while important to get on the record, won’t get him standing. Only D’Onofrio seems to have a chance to gain quo warranto standing (per Judge Carter...refuted by DOJ), so I am daring to get a bit hopeful that D’Onofrio has the Blaine BC and is prepared to use it or gain discovery of it.
Read the first paragraph after the elipses. It says that the judge below acknowledged having jurisdiction (i.e., Hollister had standing) based on interpleader laws. That is subject to review/reversal by the Court of Appeals, but at this time, (as I understand it) Hollister DOES have standing.
Maybe a lawyer can clarify, but that is my understanding.