Apuzzo authored this excellent piece:
WHY OBAMA WILL NEITHER PUBLICLY SPEAK ABOUT WHERE HE WAS BORN NOR PRODUCE HIS ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE
Statements have been made in the public domain that if Obama was not born in Hawaii but rather in Kenya, that he actually committed a crime involving fraud. That leads me to think that if that were true, then Obama has a Constitutional and state common law right to avoid further self-incrimination and to remain silent. That could explain why he has neither talked publicly nor wants to talk in any court of law about where he was born. But his right to remain silent would not extend to withholding his original Certificate of Live Birth. Disclosure of documents is not testimonial (coming from a person’s mouth) and his 5th Amendment and state common law right to remain silent and to not incriminate himself would not prevent such disclosure. This leads me to the main point.
Obama at present finds himself in a trilemma: (1) Does he state publicly that he was born in Hawaii if he knows he was not and thereby “perjure” himself in the court of public opinion should the truth be eventually discovered? If he so swore under oath before Congress or any court of law, it would be actual perjury. (2) Will he produce his original birth certificate which may show and will he tell the public the truth that he was not born in Hawaii but rather Kenya and thereby betray his natural instinct of self-preservation and his life-long ambition to be President of the United States? or (3) Does he remain silent as to where he was born and continue to refuse to release his original birth certificate and thereby earn the contempt of those in the public who believe that he has not convincingly proven that he is a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be President? I submit that Obama has made the third choice.
The consequences for Obama are the least drastic and he gains the most benefits under the choice involving remaining silent and not producing his original birth certificate which is exactly what he has done to date. There are at least two reasons for this:
(1) To date, no court of law has been willing to accept any case challenging his “natural born Citizen” status. The courts have dismissed law suits against him for reasons of jurisdiction, standing, political question, justiciability, and for reasons unknown. These procedural obstacles have allowed him to escape having to defend the underlying merits of the claims against him which would necessarily involve his having to make declarations under oath as part of legal discovery and before the court itself in case of a trial. He will simply continue to pursue this procedural strategy, for being so successful will allow him to maintain his silence and not produce his original birth certificate with the cost to him personally of only having to pay his team of lawyers. This strategy explains why he is willing to spend enormous amounts of his own money and resources for his legal defense (maybe not even his own money if he can make a case that he can use his campaign contributions to meet the costs involved) and cause private individual plaintiffs and public institutions (courts and public entity defendants) to spend theirs with no end in sight. This strategy also provides great impetus to the sales of his past and future books, thereby further filling up his coffers. This strategy also explains why he is not willing to simply spend less than $100.00 and produce his original birth certificate for the benefit of those Americans who want to see it. Lastly, this strategy provides an answer to the question of, assuming that Obama in the end simply produces his original birth certificate which shows he was born in Hawaii, why would Obama risk the public then perceiving him as one who played a dirty little game for the sake of aggrandizing his own image and increasing his profits.
(2) Obama wants (i) people who simply voted for him, (ii) people who are apathetic to the eligibility issue or because of ignorance, fear, or self-ambition refuse to address it; and (iii) people who in good faith believe he is eligible to be President (these categories may overlap), to believe that all the lawsuits and internet chatter questioning his eligibility to be President is political sour grapes, racism, or “tinfoil hat” conspiracy nonsense. These “explanations” for this outcry against him provide great camouflage for his silence and refusal to release his original birth certificate. This strategy limits any contempt backlash to only those who oppose him on the eligibility issue and to no one else, thereby greatly reducing the price associated with the public contempt component.
The benefits Obama gains from stonewalling compared to the price he has to pay for complete disclosure makes the choice to refuse to speak about where he was born and to produce his original birth certificate most attractive for Obama. The stakes are high in this game for the Office of President. Obama has shown that he has the arrogance and audacity to play the game any which way he wants simply to win that Office and greatly profit thereby. The question for many concerned Americans who doubt whether he is eligible to be President is what they can do to get the nation’s political, legal, and social institutions to adequately and honestly investigate and decide whether he is indeed qualified to be President. Obama’s strategy is now preventing these Americans from learning the truth about whether he is eligible to be President. The ball is in the court of those who challenge Him.
© Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey
The way they were so quick to administer that second oath in “an abundance of caution” makes me wonder why they won’t spend $12.00 for a birth certificate in that same “abundance of caution” spirit.
And the hits just a keep on comin. He should add active and reserve military to his case.
The drums may be distant but the volume is increasing.
Another soon to be tossed-out.
I guess this is a form of welfare for lawyers.
In `92 the public was promised “the most ethical administration ever” and we got 8 years of breathtaking venality.
Obama & Co. are promising “transformation, transparency and trust” so I suppose we can expect that getting a straight answer out of them will be like pulling a wisdom tooth ... That’s been the experience, so far at least, with asking the simple question:
“Uh, are you (whatever your real name is) are you even ... an American?”
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is actually the first suit to name Obama as a defendant. All the others have been against various State officials or electors challenging their actions.
This is an important distinction because, for example, an elector would not have the legal right to request another person’s birth certificate.
Frivolous. The court is not an informational or investigative department.
Jan 20th has passed.
Now, someone who is affected by an official act of Zobama has to file suit to have it declared void because he is not qualified to be President.
Is it a true statement that should Obummer be found to be ineligible to hold the office of the President that everything he did while in office would immediately become null and void?
Rocky: "But that trick never works."
Bullwinkle: "This time for sure!"
Who gives a damn where Obama was born! WHAT???
We are going about this the wrong way. It is very easy to prove that Obama was a British Citizen at birth.
The answer is right here:
Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:
“British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth,
Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK.
How do you subpoena the president. I mean the Secret Service wouldn’t let you get that close.
How do they serve Obama? Knock on the front door of the White House? I’d love to see that.
These judges are supposed to be smart men...surely somebody in this country has ‘standing’ to verify eligibility requirements spelled out in the constitution...if nobody had standing, it would have been pointless to put the requirements in.
During the next presidential election, I am calling on illegal immigrants and high school students to run...who can stop ‘em.
The Supremes must be playing drinking games with these things by now. You know, every time a suit mentions the word "birth certificate" or quotes Vittel, they take a shot of something. I suspect that absent a drinking game, the tedium of having to dismiss virtually the same lawsuit over and over and over again would drive them insane.
This may have been brought up before, but ...
When my son was five years old, my husband of three years adopted him. This adoption caused the birth certificate to be changed — changed to show my husband as the birth father! The original birth certificate is no longer - it’s as though it were destroyed. Even though I didn’t know my husband when my son was born, the adoption shows as though I did and he is named the father. If Lolo Soetoro adopted Barack, his name was probably changed to Barack Soetoro - and that is what is on the birth certificate - not Barack Obama. And he would have become an Indonesian citizen as well.
This is the suit I was searching for an attorney for from last week. It is filed.
It seems many pro-Obama people on the internet say that the new, very strict federal medical privacy laws, HIPAA, prohibit any Hawaii hospital---even if Obama's mother was never a patient in that hospital---from revealing to reporters that Obama’s mother was or was not a patient on Aug. 4, 1961, even though she died in the 1990s.
It is all very confusing to me.
However, I did some research on HIPAA, and I came across this passage in an article about myths about HIPAA.
I post it here for discussion sake.
“Myth #13: The press can no longer access vital public information from hospitals about accident or crime victims.
FACT: HIPAA allows hospitals to continue to make public (including to the press) certain patient directory information - including the patient’s location in the facility and condition in general terms - unless the patient has specifically opted out of having such information publicly available.
Thus, if a patient has not opted out of being listed in a hospital directory, and a reporter knows the name of an accident or crime victim, the reporter can request directory information from a hospital, including the condition of the patient.
HIPAA does prohibit the hospital from releasing anything more than directory information, without the patient’s authorization.
This HIPAA provision, however, is not a change from most existing state laws, which protect the confidentiality of patient information to varying degrees.
Further, the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not directly cover the media, so once a reporter obtains patient information, from any source, he or she is not restricted by HIPAA in how the information is used or disclosed.”
bookmark
Under the 10th Amendment, if Congress has failed to designate the states or a department or agency of the federal gov’t. as being responsible for verifying presidential eligibility, and the states refuse to do so, then that power is reserved to the people.
~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~
Steve Pidgeon, plaintiff attorney in Broe v. Reed, says the Washington SoS asserts that it is the voters’ responsibility to determine a candidate’s eligibility.
Rejection of a citizens standing on this complaint is a violation of the people’s right to redress of grievances under the 1st Amendment and a violation of the people’s right at assert the powers reserved to them under the 10th Amendment.