If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

WHAT IS IN THE VIDEO THAT HE WANTS REMOVED?

by Sharon Rondeau

(Apr. 19, 2012) — Following reports that Atty. Mario Apuzzo was asked by an attorney representing Barack Hussein Obama in a ballot challenge in the state of New Jersey to remove video footage from the internet of the hearing held on April 10, The Post & Email has contacted both attorneys involved.

This afternoon, Atty. Apuzzo answered questions in an interview which lasted approximately 18 minutes.  We then contacted the office of Atty. Angelo Genova, which took our question but then told us that “Mr. Genova is not going to be addressing inquiries to this matter.”

Apuzzo stated that he had heard of the law firm Genova Burns Giantomasi & Webster but had never had contact with Atty. Genova.  He described the firm as “one of the larger” law firms in the state of New Jersey.

On April 10, a challenge to the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II to have his name placed on the New Jersey ballot for the 2012 presidential election was heard in Mercerville, NJ, with Judge Jeffrey Masin presiding.  Obama was represented at that time by Atty. Alexandra Hill of the above-named law firm.

Atty. Apuzzo stated that he received a call from Atty. Genova on April 16 which was unexpected during which.  Apuzzo stated that he was told that Atty. Hill had received “death threats” which he planned to report to the police.  Genova reportedly also stated that he was “unhappy” about the recording of the trial which was posted on YouTube following the trial and was going to make a motion to “have it stricken from the record.”  Apuzzo stated that he did not make the video and that it “had nothing to do” with him.

Apuzzo told us that he offered to post a statement on his blog “a message to the public” condemning any threats which might have been made, but Genova said that “it would not be necessary.”  Apuzzo also reported that Genova stated that he would be “handling the case from now on.”  Apuzzo described the phone call as “not cordial.”

The Post & Email asked if it was within Apuzzo’s ability to remove the video and he said, “No.”  He stated that Genova wanted the video “stricken from the record” but that it was his opinion that the video is not part of the record.  “The record is what the witnesses testify to in court, what documents are introduced into evidence, arguments of counsel, everything that’s recorded.  The record is the recording.  In the old days, you had a court reporter there with the little machine, but today it’s done electronically.”

Apuzzo explained that sometimes something is ordered stricken from the record, in which case the item cannot be used as evidence.  “It’s still in the record, but it’s not evidence,” he said.

Apuzzo said that Genova “did not expect” him to do anything.  “He was telling me what he was going to do,” Apuzzo said.  Apuzzo does not consider the video part of the official court record.

Apuzzo said that a court order could be issued to “cease and desist” and to remove a video on the internet if it were recorded illegally or were defamatory.  “There’s no basis here that I can see because the court approved it,” Apuzzo said.

The Post & Email asked where the request would be made for removal of the video, and Apuzzo responded that it would be the court which heard the ballot challenge on April 10.  He added that it would be difficult to expunge the video because thousands or even tens of thousands of people could have downloaded it to their personal computers.  “The court could have the power to order something like that if it’s warranted,” he said.

“It’s not as if we have actor there playing the part of the judge and the others.  It’s the real thing.  It was a legal proceeding.”

Terry Hurlbut of Conservative News and Views had reported last evening that he and a team of attorneys had each made a videotape of the hearing with Judge Masin’s approval before the hearing began.  Hurlbut stated:

The New Jersey Administrative Code says that anyone may record a public hearing. The judge may restrict such recording so that it does not disrupt the hearing. On April 10, before the hearing began, Judge Masin summoned Apuzzo and Hill to his chambers. There, as Apuzzo said later, the judge asked about persons wanting to record the hearings on video. Apuzzo knew that CNAV and Dan Haggerty had brought cameras. He had also given an interview to Station WHYY-TV (Channel 12, Philadelphia, PA), who told him they would come to the hearing. Judge Masin said that he would allow video cameras, so long as their operators mounted them on fixed tripod stands. Haggerty and CNAV agreed to this.

After we asked, Apuzzo said that there are expenses involved in obtaining the transcript from the hearing and in filing an appeal to Judge Masin’s ruling that Obama is eligible to be on the New Jersey ballot, which must be filed within 45 days of the judge’s final decision rendered on April 10.  Donations can be sent to his office, which is located at:

Law Offices of Mario Apuzzo
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831

Donations should be designated “New Jersey Ballot Challenge Appeal.”

Join the Conversation

4 Comments

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. When one considers the repeated offenses that the criminal usurper illegally occupying the Oval Office has committed against our constitution and the assistance Mr. Obama has given his Muslim brothers from the hood, (Muslim Brotherhood’s $1.5 Billlion Holy Week Windfall by Judi McLeod on homelandsecurityUS.com), one can only imagine the lengths the Muslim fraud practicing taqqiya will go to in order to preserve his illegal presidency and advance the worldwide domination agenda of the murderous cult of Islam. The Novemeber presidential election shall run deep with corruption on the part of the liberal democrats under orders from their Supreme Leader, Mr. Barack ‘King Hussein’ Obama / Soetoro, the ‘Manchurian’ Muslim from Mombasa. There is a reason why Mr. Obama repeatedly deletes the word “Creator” from his references to the constitution: the Creator recognized in the constitution, from Whom we all men are endowed with certain inalienable Rights, is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ.

  2. I hope everyone involved in these various cases keeps up the pressure. Barry Soetoro has psychological problems, and there is a strong possibility that he will crack under pressure. With legal pressures coming from the ballot challenges, and campaign ads starting to ramp up over the summer, anything can happen. If his poll numbers continue to decline, there is no telling what he will do. A person who has had everything handed to him his entire life, and who has thrived on praise and adulation, cannot deal with reality and rejection once it comes his way.

    This could get quite interesting…

  3. “What is in the video?” Hmmm.

    Could it be Mr. Apuzzo’s brilliant strategy of having “Obama’s” attorney agree to strike from evidence the so-called long form birth certificate – meaning that there is now absolutely NO EVIDENCE in court of “Obama’s” place of birth, or HIS IDENTITY. Meaning: “Obama” is now in the impossible position of having to conjure up a legally persuasive means of identification – along with a time and place of birth.

    Or ….

    Could it be that his attorneys are getting cranky at the prospect of having to defend someone they well know has committed massive election fraud?

    Which of course ticks them off personally – for by so doing, he scammed them too.

  4. Well, a nerve has been struck. This is wonderful to deal a Slapinsky to the Slapinsky-ites and legally register the flawed eligibility of barry soetero.