Wednesday, December 31, 2008


By now, many of us know about the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) that Obama posted on the internet in June 2008 as proof that he was born in Hawaii.  This document was touted by and as sufficient proof that he was born in Hawaii.  Later on we learned about Hawaiian law in effect at the time of Obama's birth that allowed parents or guardians of babies born in a foreign country to register the foreign births in Hawaii and to receive a COLB as evidence of that registration.  We also learned that only the original Certificate of Live Birth (BC), issued by the birth hospital, provides, among other things, the name of the hospital where a baby was born and the name of the attending physician that delivered the baby.  We learned that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (a state agency that happens to detail the difference) states:

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a  more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.

After learning this information many concerned Americans had doubts about whether the COLB was sufficient proof that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii.  But apart from the lax Hawaii law, there is another important point to understand about the COLB.  

If one reads the document, one will see that at the bottom it states:  "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding."

The important words here are "prima facie evidence."  "Prima facie"  is a Latin phrase meaning "on its first appearance" or "by first instance." It is evidence which is adequate, if not invalidated, to confirm a particular intention or fact. It is evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.  A prima facie case may be insufficient to enable a party to prevail if the opposing party introduces contradictory evidence.  In other words, it basically means that on the face of it or on the surface there is enough evidence to prove the alleged fact, unless and until the alleged fact is contradicted. 

What does all this mean?  Obama has presented his COLB has proof that he was born in Hawaii.  That document itself states that it is only "prima facie" evidence of that fact.  As we have seen under the definition of "prima facie," the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented.  When evidence contradicting the alleged fact is presented,  the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact.  If he fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence.  

Many concerned Americans have provided the public domain with evidence which contradicts the COLB's statement that Obama was born in Hawaii.  They have presented the following:  the existence of the lax Hawaiian law that existed at the time Obama was born which allowed parents to register their foreign born babies in Hawaii; Obama's grandmother's statement that her grandson was born in Kenya and that she was present during that birth; the Kenya Ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, confirmed on November 6, 2008 during a radio interview with Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF's "Mike In the Morning," that "President-Elect Obama" was born in Kenya and that his birth place was already a "well-known" attraction; the conflicting statements of Obama and his sister concerning in which Hawaiian hospital he was born; the failure of any Hawaiian hospital to confirm that Obama and/or his mother were present in any such hospital at the time of Obama's alleged birth in Honolulu;  Director of Hawaiian Department of Heath, Fukino, said she has “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," but she failed to say that the certificate shows that Obama was born in Hawaii;'s and's current silence on the issue;  the lack of any other corroborating document showing that Obama was born in Hawaii; the refusal of Obama to release for inspection his past documents (college and law school records and passports) which would shed some light as to where he was born; the failure of Obama to declare publicly after his COLB has been put into question that he was born in Hawaii; and Obama relying on state privacy laws to block the release of a certified copy of his birth certificate.  

This mountain of contradictory evidence is sufficient to cause the prima facie presumption of the COLB to fall.  Obama therefore now has the burden to come forward with competent evidence to prove that he was born in Hawaii.  To date, he has failed to come forward with that evidence.  

Hence, under these circumstances, how can the American people in good faith conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii which makes him a "natural born Citizen" and therefore eligible to be President?  How can Obama in good conscience take the oath to be President on January 20th when so many Americans have put forward all this contradictory evidence regarding where he was born and he refuses to come forward with any other convincing evidence (like a certified copy of his original birth certificate) showing that he was born in Hawaii?  

Obama should do the right thing for everyone's sake and produce the evidence of where he was born.  

(c) Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Jamesburg, New Jersey 
December 31, 2008