Some of Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama Soetoro's Passport Application Records Are Released due to Strunk FOIA Filing

UPDATED passport file analysis and comments ...

Some Stanley Ann Dunham passport file documents are released. Passport office implies in cover letter earliest passport application no longer exists. The earliest 1960/1961 passport application paper work information is missing from this released information. The record starts with a "RENEWAL" application filed in 1965 due her name change after marrying Lolo Soetoro at Molokai Hawaii on March 15, 1965 per page marked P3 of the released documents. The carefully worded cover letter implies earlier years records have been purged for some reason. Since passport records are filed in files by name and not in boxes or files by year, this does not make sense. It sounds to me like HI officials (or whoever controls them) are now instructing the U.S. Passport Office how to obfuscate and parse sentences in cover letters to allow them to not provide what one asks for and yet not be lying. There was obviously a passport issued to Stanley Ann (whatever name she used to get it) prior to 1965. I was under the impression that passport records kept and filed by name were kept virtually forever.

Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro-Passport Application File-Strunk v Dept of State-FOIA Release-FINAL-7-29-10. This file indicates via the 1965 renewal application that Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama had a passport issued to her prior to 1965 and she was applying to RENEW it. Since a passport was good for 5 years that means she likely got her first passport in late 1960 of early 1961. Why did she need a passport at age 18? She would not need it to have a baby in Hawaii or to go to college in Seattle Washington. What was the real reason this pregnant teenager got a passport in late 1960 or early in 1961? I believe it was likely to be able to travel to Kenya to have the baby over there where it was her intent to leave the baby there to be raised my the paternal family in Kenya. She was to then return to re-start her life as a young teenager going to college in Seattle Washington. And then when Stanley Ann did not follow the plan because maternal instincts kicked in and she returned to college in Seattle WITH the new baby, grandma Dunham had to take action and filed the fraudulent action in Hawaii to falsely register the baby as born at home there with no witnesses to get her newborn grandson U.S. Citizenship ... because it was very easy to do this in Hawaii in 1961. Listen to the Bill Cunningham Radio Show for how it was likely done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZpwcRf3FQ

Also in this passport applications file is revealed the exact date of her marriage (two different exact dates and locations?) to Lolo Soetoro. But as everything with this family, nothing is consistent. In 1965 she says she married Lolo Soetoro on March 15, 1965 in Molokai Hawaii. But in a later passport renewal application marked P5 filed in 1981 she states she married him on March 5, 1964 in Maui, Hawaii. Which is true? Either way, said marriage dates, could have allowed for Obama to have been legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii at age 5 or under given these marriage dates, and his falsified birth records in Hawaii, fraudulently created by grandma Dunham in 1961, and which could have been amended to show the new legal name of Barry Soetoro. And then Obama could have later re-amended them back to put his name back to Barack Hussein Obama II when in his life that suited him. Obama is a life narrative chameleon. He changes names and citizenship at will during his life to suit his current needs and plans.

Also on document P2, the second page of that document, she wrote in the block named "Amend to Include (Exclude) Children" the name of her son Barack Hussein Obama and then right below it a weird name or phrase spelled and in parenthesis as (Soebarkah). This entry then has 5 diagonal line strike-through lines across the entry. Another mysterious new tidbit to research.

When the original and complete birth records file for Obama going back to and including Aug 1961 and all subsequent amendments are released, it will likely be very damning to Obama's self created nativity narrative and other stories of his early life. Children legally adopted at age 5 and under have their new citizenship governed by the international Hague Convention Treaty on adopting children of which the USA is a signatory. That is likely why Obama alludes to his being age 6 when those Indonesian records are discussed in regards to when his step-father "adopted" him and saying that the adoption occurred in Indonesia. I think that story is more false direction and misinformation type data put out by Obama to throw one off the true trail.

See the records that have been released per the Strunk FOIA request and court order at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35161730/Stanley-Ann-Dunham-Obama-Soetoro-Passport-Application-File-Strunk-v-Dept-of-State-FOIA-Release-FINAL-7-29-10

Posted by:

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
Please visit this website and help the cause if you can:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Dr Polland charges in his videos that Identity, Election, Wire, Internet, Interstate Commerce, & Birth Certificate Fraud were committed by Obama et al

Dr. Ron Polland, PhD, charges in the below linked videos that Identity Fraud, Election Fraud, Wire Fraud, Internet Fraud, Interstate Commerce Fraud, & Birth Certificate Fraud were committed by Obama and/or by one or more of the various other organizations and Hawaiian officials that were covering up for Obama during the 2008 election and that the cover up still continues to this day | by Dr. Polland's "Fraud in the USA" YouTube series

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP#p/c/C2281523DF8C0230/1/BWciae2HFKc

To view the entire series of Dr. Ron Polland's YouTube "FRAUD IN THE USA" video clips it is suggested you view them in the below sequence. Enter the channel using the #0 link below and then immediately pause the displayed video and open the videos noted in the #1 - #9 sequence:

Great music accompanies each video as you watch and learn about "Fraud in the USA" during the 2008 election of Obama and the continuing cover up.

#0 YouTube channel entry; then select and view the videos in the below suggested sequence, and more of Dr. Polland videos and research results:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP#p/c/C2281523DF8C0230/1/BWciae2HFKc

---------------------------------------------------------------------

#1 "FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 1)"
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP#p/c/C2281523DF8C0230/2/f2-2E65uFHM

#2 "FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 2)"
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP#p/c/C2281523DF8C0230/3/obuLAZ0iizw

#3 "FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 3)"
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP#p/c/C2281523DF8C0230/4/h-RDBMwcUgg

#4 "FRAUD IN THE USA (Chapter 1, Part 4)"
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP#p/c/C2281523DF8C0230/5/GAKxLNs3-Ew

$5 "It's the conspiracy, Stupid!"
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP#p/c/C2281523DF8C0230/1/BWciae2HFKc

#6 "HAIL TO THE CHEATS!"
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP#p/c/C2281523DF8C0230/9/JKs5n9G9uGA

#7 "BLUE HAWAII"
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP#p/c/C2281523DF8C0230/0/nc5JE0JAqlk

#8 "FRAUD IN THE USA: "SOME ASSEMBLY REQUIRED" (Chapter 2-1)"
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP#p/c/C2281523DF8C0230/7/aFAP6TUDgq8

#9 "FRAUD IN THE USA: "MAKE A DATE WITH A SEAL" (Chapter 2-2)"
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDrRJP#p/c/C2281523DF8C0230/8/zJnE7elQ9wc

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by:

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Pennsylvania USA
And if you can help the cause to Protect Our Liberty, please do so by visiting:
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Finds Attorney Apuzzo Not Liable for Obama's/Congress’ Damages and Costs Incurred by Them in Defending the Kerchner Appeal

On July 2, 2010, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision affirming the New Jersey Federal District Court’s dismissal of the Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al case for lack of Article III standing. The Court ordered that I show cause in 14 days why the Court should not find me liable for just damages and costs suffered by the defendants, not in having to defend against the merits of plaintiffs’ underlying claims that Putative President Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” that he has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii, that Congress failed to exercise its constitutional duty to properly vet and investigate Obama’s “natural born Citizen” status, and that former Vice President and President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, and current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, were complicit in that Congressional failure, but rather in having to defendant against what the court considers to be a frivolous appeal of the District Court’s dismissal of their claims on the ground of Article III standing. On Monday, July 19, 2010, I filed my response. This afternoon, on July 22, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision on whether it should impose the damages and costs upon me. The Court has decided not to impose any damages and costs upon me and has discharged its order to show cause. This means that the matter of damages and costs is closed. Here is the Court’s decision:

"ORDER (SLOVITER, BARRY and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges) On July 2, 2010, this Court filed an Order to Show Cause directing Appellants’ counsel to show cause in writing why he should not be subject to an Order pursuant to F.R.A.P. 38 for pursuing a frivolous appeal. In response, Mario Apuzzo filed a 95-page statement that contains, inter alia, numerous statements directed to the merits of this Court’s opinion, which the Court finds unpersuasive. His request that the Court reconsider its opinion is denied, as the appropriate procedure for that issue is through a Petition for Rehearing. However, based on Mr. Apuzzo's explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause, filed. Sloviter, Authoring Judge. (PDB)."

I want to thank everyone who supported and encouraged me in this battle. This includes everyone who expressed their feelings on this matter through blog posts, articles, comments, and emails.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 22, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
###

The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to 3rd Circuit - Attorney Apuzzo Files his Response to the Show Cause Order

The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to Third Circuit - Attorney Apuzzo Files his Response to the Court's Order that he Show Cause Why the Court Should Not Impose Defendants' Damages and Costs Against Him

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34567772/03-09-4209-Appeal-Atty-Apuzzo-Files-Kerchner-Response-to-Court-s-Show-Cause-Order-for-Damages-Costs




Posted by:
Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
July 19, 2010
###

Ad-Kenya My Country, Tussker My Beer-The Elephant in Oval Office Congress & Major Media Won't Talk About-Wash Times Natl Wkly 26 19 12 Jul 2010-pg 5

Newest Ad - Kenya My Country, Tussker My Beer - The Elephant in the Oval Office Congress & the Major Media Won't Talk About - Washington Times National Weekly edition - 26, 19, and 12 July 2010 issues - pg 5

The Newest Ad: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34860477/Kenya-My-Country-Tusker-My-Beer-The-Elephant-in-the-Oval-Office-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-20100726-Pg-5

The Evidence: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html

The Cover-up: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-believe-fix-was-in-for-2008-election.html


Add your vote here to get Attorney Mario Apuzzo on the air with the Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss this issue:
http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/forums/16626-freedom-watch-guest-suggestions/suggestions/268573-mario-apuzzo-esq-

Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms the Dismissal of the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress Case for Lack of Standing and Orders Attorney Apuzzo to Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Assessed Damages and Costs

On July 2, 2010, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its precedential decision affirming the New Jersey Federal District Court’s dismissal of the Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al case for lack of Article III standing which is required for the Court to have subject matter jurisdiction under that article. It also ordered that I show cause in 14 days why the Court should not find me liable for damages and costs suffered by the defendants in having to defend what the court considers to be a “frivolous” appeal. Neither the Federal District Court nor Obama/Congress et al argued that our case was frivolous. Nevertheless, the appeals court on its own gave me notice that it wants me to show cause why I should not have to pay for the defendants damages and costs incurred in defending the action.

The Court did not find that the merits of our case are “frivolous.” Rather, it found “frivolous” my appealing to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals the Federal District Court’s finding that the plaintiffs do not have standing to ask that court to decide the merits of their claim that Putative President Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” that he has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii, that Congress failed to exercise its constitutional duty to properly vet and investigate Obama’s “natural born Citizen” status, and that former Vice President and President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, and current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, were complicit in that Congressional failure.

On the standing issue, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not establish that they suffered an “injury in fact.” They said that the injury that plaintiffs allege is like that of Philip Berg’s and is not concrete or particularized enough to satisfy Article III standing. They found that these injuries are “too generalized” for Article III courts. They added that plaintiffs’ injuries are not “concrete and particularized” because they are “harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people.” Furthermore, the court said that plaintiffs’ injuries are “generalized grievances” which “are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch.” Like the District Court, the Court acknowledged plaintiffs’ “frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area…” But also like the District Court, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs’ “remedy may be found through their vote.” Finally, the Court stated that because plaintiffs failed to show they have standing, it need not address plaintiffs’ contention that “the original common law definition of an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’. . . is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father.”

On why I need to show cause why I should not have to pay to Obama, Congress, and the United States damages and costs for filing a “frivolous” appeal, the Court found that “Appellants had ample notice that this appeal had no merit. They should have been aware that we rejected almost identical claims in Berg, as have courts in other jurisdictions.” They said that an examination of this precedent would have made it obvious to a reasonable attorney that an appeal from the District Court was frivolous since no law or facts could support a conclusion that the District Court erred. While the Court acknowledged that the Federal District Court did not “explicitly” state that our claims were frivolous, the Court believes that I had meaningful notice that the appeal was frivolous from the decisions of other courts which dealt with “similar legal theories” and imposed sanctions on those lawyers for bringing forth such claims.

I am now preparing my response to the Court’s show cause order which I will be filing before the deadline of July 16, 2010. As to what other action my clients may take regarding the underlying claims against Obama and Congress, we will be discussing that aspect and acting accordingly.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 4, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Receives Kerchner v. Obama/Congress for Decision

As I have already reported, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (retired), Lowell T. Paterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr., have filed a legal action against Barack H. Obama II, in both his private and public capacity as putative President of the United States. They have included claims against Congress, former Vice-President, Dick Cheney, and current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

First, they argue that the Founders' and Framers' definition of a "natural born Citizen" may be found in the law of nations as commented on by Emer de Vattel in his highly influential treatise, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns (1758 French edition, 1759 first English edition) and not in the inapplicable English common law. The Framers adopted the “Law of Nations” as part of Article III’s “Laws of the United States” but did not so adopt the English common law. We also know that under Article VI, the “Laws of the United States” which are made in pursuance of the Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Under the law of nations, a “natural born citizen” was a child born in the country to citizen parents, meaning both mother and father. Vattel, Sections 212-33. The Kerchner plaintiffs maintain that under the law of nations, Obama is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the military because, being born with conflicting allegiance to Great Britain which he inherited from his non-United States citizen father and possibly to the United States if he was born in Hawaii as he claims but has not shown, he cannot meet the Founders’ and Framers’ constitutional definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” which requires the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth only to the United States which status is acquired at birth only if the child is born in the United States (or its equivalent) to a citizen mother and father.

Second, they also argue that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was in fact born in Hawaii or any other place in the United States and that even if he were born in the United States, at most he is a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States" but not an Article II "natural born Citizen." At the time the Framers adopted the Constitution, they allowed persons who were "citizens of the United States" to be President, provided that they had that status as of the time the Constitution was adopted which we know was 1787. If a child did not have that status at that time, the Framers required that a would-be President be a "natural born Citizen." There is no denying from a simple reading of its text that the Fourteenth Amendment only grants to individuals, who can acquire by either birth or naturalization in the United States and being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the equal status of a "citizen of the United States." The amendment makes no mention of a “natural born Citizen” and surely would not by implication equate a “citizen of the United States” with a “natural born Citizen” since the Framers in Article II were careful to make a distinction between the two types of citizens and we must give meaning to the words the Framers so chose and a naturalized citizen can be a “citizen of the United States” but cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the Amendment only defined the Framers' "citizen of the United States," which status created doubts throughout our history but did not define the Framers’ "natural born Citizen" which never created any doubts as to its meaning and therefore needed no clarification through any constitutional amendment.

Hence, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he would fall under the Framers’ "citizen of the United States" status as later defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. But being a born "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment in 1961 is not sufficient to establish eligibility under Article II which now requires that Obama be a "natural born Citizen." There is also no denying that being born in 1961, Obama was not a “citizen of the United States” at the time the Constitution was adopted in 1787. Hence, to be eligible to be President, he must be a “natural born Citizen.” But if Obama was born in Hawaii which we know was to a non-U.S. citizen father and U.S. citizen mother, he would be a born "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment but not a "natural born Citizen" under Article II. So even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he would not be eligible to be President under Article II.

I have already reported that the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia decided it did not need oral arguments on the Kerchner appeal to that Court and that the Court would receive the case on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 for decision on the briefs. I have also been informed that the Third Circuit Panel that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman. See the latest 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Summary Docket for this case here.

Now we have to wait for the Court to render its decision. We do not know how long it will take to do so. We can only presume that the Court is aware of the critical importance of this issue and that my clients need to know as soon as possible where they stand. Hence, I believe that we can expect that the Court will provide us with its decision in the not too distant future.

If the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the Federal District Court’s dismissal of the Kerchner case, the case will most likely return to that lower court for discovery and trial. On the other hand, if the Court affirms the lower court because of standing and/or political question, we will then file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will in any event provide the final judicial word on Obama’s eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 30, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
###

The Kerchner et al v. Obama/Congress et al Appeal to Third Circuit 'Submitted for Decision' 29 June 2010 on the Written Briefs with No Oral Argument

The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in Philadelphia PA decided to not allow any Oral Argument on the Kerchner v Obama & Congress appeal to that Court. The case was officially "submitted for decision" on the written briefs on Tuesday, June 29, 2010. Our presence at the courthouse was not required.

The U.S. Third Circuit Panel of the Court that will decide the appeal will be comprised of Circuit Judges Sloviter, Barry, and Hardiman.  See the latest Appeal Court Docket entry here.

As we know in the lower court, the Federal District Court, Judge Simandle granted Obama’s/Congress’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question. The Kerchner plaintiffs thus appealed that decision to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Legally, on a motion to dismiss the complaint on its face for lack of standing and political question, both the trial and the appeals courts are supposed to accept the facts alleged in the complaint/petition as true and in a light most favorable to the non-movant. We have alleged and shown the facts that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen" because he was born a subject of Great Britain through descent from his British subject/citizen father who was never a U.S. citizen, making Obama born with dual citizenship and conflicting allegiances if he was actually born in the U.S., or with sole allegiance to Great Britain if he was born in Kenya. We have also alleged and shown the facts that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was even born in Hawaii. Obama and Congress have presented no evidence or argument to the Federal District Court in Camden NJ or to the Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA contesting these arguments. The issues of standing and political question are well briefed in the written briefs presented to both courts. We have presented in our briefs how the Kerchner plaintiffs have standing and how the Obama eligibility issue does not present any objectionable political question for the Court.

Of course, it is our hope that the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the decision of the Federal District Court which dismissed the complaint/petition for lack of standing and political question and returns the Kerchner case to the District Court in Camden NJ for discovery and trial. If the Third Circuit Court affirms the District Court, thus denying our appeal, we will then be filing a Petition for Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will have the final word on this matter in any event.

Attorney Mario Apuzzo will likely post a statement on this matter later.

Charles Kerchner, Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
June 30, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
###

Two Questions to Ask Putative President Obama’s Enablers, aka Obots, Regarding Where Obama Was Born

We have seen the responses we get from Putative President Obama’s enablers, aka Obots, when we ask to see Obama's long-form birth certificate (not the Certification of Live Birth or COLB someone posted on the internet) and when we say that Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii. Here is a typical one:

"These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations, every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials, a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate. Asked about this, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate." Moreover, the director of her Department has confirmed that the state "has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

Apart from identifying and commenting on the many outright lies contained in this answer, we need to ask these enablers the following two questions and caution them that they are not to evade answering them as they have done so far. Here are the questions and accompanying instructions:

If what you say is all true, then please answer for me two questions:

1. Where specifically in Honolulu, Hawaii was Obama born? Do not just tell me in Honolulu. We are talking about the President of the United States. Hence, I want to know the exact address in Honolulu where he first saw the light of day. We are only dealing with 1961 and such information should be readily available, especially since Obama says he was born in a hospital. Also, do not simply say that he was born in some-named hospital, for you will have to provide me with credible and sufficient evidence from such an institution to support your answer. Also, some unconfirmed letter image posted on the internet that Obama allegedly wrote on January 24, 2009 to Kapi’olani Medical Center is not such evidence, for Obama never confirmed that he wrote it and the letter is not from the hospital.

2. Who was physically present when Obama was born? I doubt that in 1961 an 18-year-old girl could give birth to her first baby all alone. Hence, since as you claim Obama's birth has been confirmed by all these authorities, then you or at least one of these authorities should be able to tell me who was present to assist or witness baby Obama come out of his mother's womb. Also, we can assume that the person who was present would be the person who would have "officially" reported Obama's birth to the Hawaiian health department authorities, for surely neither Nancy Pelosi nor any past or present Hawaiian authority of whom you so glowingly speak claims to have been personally present during his alleged birth in Honolulu or to otherwise have personal knowledge of how, when, and where Obama was born. In your answer, please provide the name of the person that was present during and actually witnessed the alleged birth and his/her function at that time. Please do not whine that my question is burdensome or otherwise unreasonable given the time lapse. Again, we are only talking about 1961 and we are told that Obama's birth was in a modern hospital. Hence, the answer to my question should be rather easy to obtain from the medical file that is in the possession of the alleged birth hospital.

Please do not answer my questions by telling me that the burden of proof is on me and not Obama or that my questions are intrusive of Obama’s privacy. After all, we are talking about Obama wanting to be the President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the United States of America and leader of the free world and our Constitution requires that in order to be eligible for those powerful and singular civilian and military offices he produce such information for the people he is supposed to serve and protect in that capacity.

Please do not answer my questions by telling me that the courts have already answered these questions, for we know that they dismissed eligibility cases because of standing, political question, or some other threshold ground, and have yet to rule on the question of where Obama was born.

Please do not answer my questions by telling me that Obama has already released to the public his birth certificate (which is really a Certification of Live Birth or COLB and not a Certificate of Live Birth) by posting it on the internet and that the state of Hawaii has confirmed the existence of Obama’s birth certificate which is in the Hawaii Department of Health file, for the only birth certificate the public has seen so far is a questionable 2008 computer image of an alleged 2007 COLB which someone posted on the internet, we know that the state of Hawaii has yet to confirm that internet image, and the alleged COLB that appears on the internet does not in any event tell us where in Honolulu Obama was born or who was present when he was so born.

Please do not answer my questions by telling me about what we all learned in some high school government class or that the people already voted in the 2008 election, for you should know that what we learn in any such class or what occurs in the polling booth is neither sufficient nor indicated in our constitutional republic as a means to answer constitutional questions.

Please do not answer my questions by telling me that the people who want answers to my questions should not be taken to be rational people because they also believe the JFK assassination was a grand conspiracy, the earth is flat, the moon landing was made on some Hollywood stage, or the 9/11 attack was preplanned by our own government.

Please do not answer my questions by accusing me and the people who want answers to my questions of posting on the internet false Obama birth certificates or other fabricated Obama life stories, for we know that you yourself probably posted those things to make it look like we did.

Please do not answer my questions with a question, or with otherwise evasive answers, or with personal attacks on me, my motives, my politics, my patriotism, my religion, my views on race, my work, my ancestors, or my pets.

And finally, please do not answer my questions by telling me that the questions and answers have already been generously twittered by our smart populace.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 27, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S.  Also read this, A Catalog of Evidence - Why Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt Obama was Born In Hawaii: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html
####