Posts 
Comments
Email 
Okay now this is staring to get weird, Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate,Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”……… Seriously?
Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal 
qualifications, in order to be a candidate.
At the hearing, attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, correctly argued that Obama, under the Constitution, has to be a “natural born Citizen” and that he has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is indeed a “natural born Citizen.” He argued that Obama has shown no authenticate evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State demonstrating who he is and that he was born in the United States. Apuzzo also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.
As Obama’s legal argument becomes more contorted, he is being forced to avoid an ever shrinking legal space, and an increasing weight, of his failure to meet constitutional eligibility requirements.
Hill, of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi Attorneys in Newark, made a desperate motion to dismiss the ballot objection arguing that Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship status was not relevant to being placed on the New Jersey presidential ballot because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens.
Judge Masin denied the motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.
“Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified,” says TDP Editor, Penbrook Johannson, “Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”
According to Johannson, there is an overwhelming level of moral certainty that Obama is a usurper, but until a court with jurisdiction considers this case, Obama’s status as a legitimate president is in limbo.
“He does not exist as a president except in the imagination of those who blindly support him. Whereas he is politically desired by a transient consensus, his legality is unresolved until a responsible court makes a determination. This is the essence of our crisis. Our nation exists in a state of non-authorized identity. Obama is just some guy calling himself a president and living in the White House without the confirmative authority to do so.”
Obama’s document forgery and fraudulent presidency have now forced him to flee to a “strange twilight zone” between political popularity and legal legitimacy where poorly counterfeited records are apparently allowed to be published by Obama using government media resources for political purposes, yet those same records are held by the courts as irrelevant for determining Obama’s legal eligibility status because they are, according to judges, “so poorly forged” they are obviously meant to be satirical and not to be taken seriously as evidence.
Shockingly, parting from widespread public ignorance, Hill actually acknowledged two of the three necessary components of determining natural born citizenship as being place of birth and citizenship status of both parents. However, she argued that, “No law in New Jersey obligated him (Obama) to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.”
The third component of natural born eligibility is maintenance of natural born citizenship status from birth to election without interruption, involuntarily or voluntarily, due to expatriation, extradition, renouncement or foreign adoption.
“Obama is mocking our constitution,” says Johannson, “His position is that he never claimed the image was an indication of his natural born status, just that it was information about his birth. Whether it is forged or authentic is irrelevant to Obama because plausible deniability affords him the security in knowing that no legal authority is willing to hang him with it.”
Of course, Johannson adds that it makes Obama look like a willing accomplice and a liar, but, he says, “…show me a politician who cares about being seen as a liar by the public. If people who support him want to vote for a person like that, it reveals more about the reprobate character of Obama supporters than competency of any legal determination about his lack of constitutional eligibility. Degenerates will vote for a degenerate while patriots will exhaust all civil means to remove him…until those civil means are exhausted. Then things get ugly for government.”
“However, Hill is also essentially admitting that Obama is not a legitimate president and that Obama believes that his illegitimacy does not matter to his legal ability to hold the office. Obama holds to a political tenet, not a legal one with respect to his views on his eligibility. That’s what corrupt, criminal politicians do. When the law convicts them, they run to public favorability for shelter with the hope that their supporters will apply pressure to disregard law in their case.”
Obama is now arguing that because he is politically popular, as he points to as being indicated by his so-called ‘election’, despite accusations of eligibility fraud and election fraud, the constitutional eligibility mandate is not relevant, in his view. Until a courageous authority is willing to disagree and hold Obama to an equally weighted legal standard, civil remedies for the Obama problem are limited.
Johannson adds that Obama is making the same argument on behalf of Obamacare.
“If he had the gall to actually tell the Supreme Court that they have no authority to determine the unconstitutionality of his illegitimate policies, what makes anyone think he believes they have the authority to disqualify him due to his lack of constitutional eligibility? Obama believes he holds preeminent power over all branches of government because of his delusions of political grandeur.”
He correctly points to a lifetime pattern of behavior and testimony by Obama which indicates a complete lack of regard for the U.S. Constitution when it restricts Obama’s political agenda and lust for power.
“This is a guy who illegally defaced public property when he scribed his aspirations to be ‘king’ in a concrete sidewalk at the age of ten, for God’s sake. Now, his ‘majesty’ wants to put his illegal ‘graffiti’ into American law books. However, his problem is that he has to face the fact that he is an abject failure in his capacity to meet any standard required by the 250-year-old U.S. Constitution, in everything he tries to do. The Constitution owns him and he can’t stand it. He hates it. Therefore, instead of admitting his lack of constitutionality, he simply breaks the rules and proceeds to illegally scribe his fake authority on everything until someone is willing to physically stop him. Obama is not just an illegitimate politician, he is a rogue outlaw without regard for the divine providence of American law.”
Apuzzo submitted that New Jersey law requires Obama to show evidence that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. Apuzzo added that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot.
Don’t belive it, the account of the trial can be read here at Mario Apuzzo, Esq web site.
Obama's Lawyer Admits Birth Certificate is a Forgery,
She never said any such thing. This was a deliberate misquotation of what she said.
In case you haven’t noticed, birthers lost that case, just as they lost about 100 others. In fact, there have now been four state court cases and one federal court case that specifically ruled that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.
Oh, and the idea that Obama’s lawyer would say that the physical birth certificate that was sent by Hawaii to Obama twice (the short form and the long form) and that was shown by the White House to the press, and whose facts were repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii (three Republicans and several Democrats) and that is further confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 (which in those days were only sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii, and only sent for births in Hawaii)–is an absurd and laughable LIE.
Here, by the way, is the ruling in the case that you refer to:
http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/88910250-Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin
She did in-fact stipulate it because of a concession of a witness.
So no she did not say strait out it was a forgery, she agreed to the terms set forth by Puzzo so the witness would not testify if you look at Puzzo terms he claimed the BC is a forgery..So there you have it.
Which begs the quetion why would she not want the witness to testify??
The more answers that come along the more questions that pop up..
If Obama is in fact legally eligible for that office, why does he refuse to show his papers? Could it be because his college papers show him as a foreign student?
What “judge” could find him legally eligible when they don’t know where he was born?
It has been written by Obama he was born with a Kenyan student as his father. He also states he was adopted by an Indonesian stepfather. So what determination did the “judges” use to find him a natural born citizen?
Are you an American? What do you really know about the guy? And what has he achieved, to be reelected? The US Debt stood at US$10 TRILLION when he was elected, and the guy promised to reduce it by half. Now it stands at $16 TRILLION and the US Finances are broke. This seems OK to you? Or you don´t understand that at any moment you won´t receive any kind of handouts, not even food stamps, thanks to your Kenyan halfbreed. What are you going to eat?
Simonson,
Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama is not our official president. Why? Because he is not a natural born American citizen.
It is highly doubtful if he even is an American citizen. Why, you ask? Because if he was born to a Kenyan father who was a British subject, and as he advertised for 16 years, he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. If he was born in Kenya, at her age, his mother could not pass her American citizenship down to him. If he was born in Hawaii, he could only gain dual-citizenship.
Assuming he was an American citizen; when his mother married his Indonesian stepfather who adopted him, he lost his American citizenship because Indonesia would not accept dual-citizenship back then.
Has he ever repatriated to his American citizenship? In politics, he would have announced it when it happened. He hasn’t, so is he still an Indonesian?
One thing he cannot be is a natural born American citizen.
So the biggest question is” Why did Congress allow this to happen?
I have a subscription, so why am I being censored?
What about Joe Arpaio´s proof and Obama´s declaring that his father is not a US citizen? What about truth? She declared that they did not have any other document. All of this BS will be over any moment now, because a judge in Tennessee has accepted to examine the proofs.
Neither Obama’s father or stepfather were American citizens. If he was born in Kenya as he advertised for 16 years, his mother could not pass her American citizenship down to him at her age back then.
My question then; is he an American citizen? We know he can’t be a natural born citizen through his acknowledged families.
This is a historical fact. For the lefties, anything that the Party states, is the only truth. Currently, as one of their great leaders, Lenin, said “Lie, Lie, some of it will stick” is what the media is doing for Obama, or they keep silent. Something like the Pol Pot reality that was not reported because he was a Commie. His followers suffocated (with yellow plastic bags) around 2 million citizen, and no media reported this until a journalist escaped an informed the West about this tragedy. Is this being prepared for the US citizen? Now a country where c rimes aren´t reported by the media, where one guy named Holder has beed gun running in exhange for money for the presidential elections? What other explanation can he give, now that he has been informed of a possible impeachment or something of the sort?
All of the above discussions are too late, and the fact remains that he, not only has shown any original Birth Certificate, but his social security number is not his, and all of his background documents and info are hidden, for now.
And none of the Kenyan´s followers care about Obama´s having contributed to ruin the US finances (By increasing the US Debt to an un payable 16 TRILLION, from 10T.), and loss of freedom.
http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/04/nj-ballot-ruling-on-obama-eligibility/
She never said any such thing.
She never said any such thing. Birthers are crazy to believe articles that claim that she said it. The articles cited that claim that she said it do not contain any quotation marks. There are no words there saying: “It is forged” or anything like it. What they are doing is interpreting and speculating and twisting her words. But there is a reason why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and the National Review do not believe articles like these. They are sensible.
Obama’s lawyer agreed to what was said as part of a concession on a motion, it was not directly said but understood and implied.
The witness she foes not want to testify is a foresic expert on documentation forging. Why would they not want him to testify should be the question.
ehancock. Starting from Lenin, whose disinformation policy has been followed by all leftist, Obama Bin Lyin´ and his followers have been twistging laws, the constitution and even clear crimes, to their convenience. Apart from the illegal and Non Constitutional, absurdly named “Humanitarian War”,which, reportedly, cost between 40thousand and 100.00′ Libyan victims, Obama has showed his true Anti American and Muslim status, when he defined the FORT HOOD murder of 13 soldiers, and 29 wounded US uniformed military, by a US Major (a Muslim of Arabian parents) who cried “Allahu Akhbar” before he started the massacre, as A WORKING PLACE ACCIDENT, which tghe mainstream media left as such until today. I dare anyone in the world, but the American left, to accept the above definition as an ACCIDENT. The military authorities also accepted this definition without any protest. Discipline?
Comparably, how has the media qualified the “Trayvon” issue, where photographic proof was forged, in order to show Zimmerman as a murderer, when he was being attacked by the black “Victim”? What kind of legal standards are being applied?
Ehancock. Your links just show more info about Obama´s illegillibillity, so why don´t you stop lying? And show your name. Obamawise, you are a lie.
They are sensible Ehancock? To being fired? Why doesn´t Obama surrender the Docuemnts; Birth Certificate, Social Security, Selective Service, sis Educational Background Documents, where he figures as a Foreign Student? Oh, shut up you poor thing….
You are one brainwashed or dis informed guy ehancockadoodle.
Where have you seen, or who has ever showed a rel Birth Certificate? Or maybe a little biased. As for Bill O´Reilly and the rest you mention, the poor guys have been clearly forced from following their old ideologies or whatever. Now they have to say what they are ordered… praise and defend the WH Occupier, or lose their jobs. So you are right, they are being sensible to threats.
Answer: NO it is not true. She did not say it. The birther article said that she said it, but did not use quotes around any statement. Neither the article nor the transcript shows at any time that the lawyer said “the birth certificate is forged” or anything like it.
And the idea that a lawyer would say that a client forged a document is loony in itself.
Re: “Obama’s lawyer agreed to what was said as part of a concession on a motion, it was not directly said but understood and implied.”
Answer: The above statement is total crap. Unless you say: “It is a forgery” or “I admit it was forged,” you did not say it. Moreover there was no concession motion on the issue of forgery. The issue was whether or not the birth certificate should be introduced and, if so, whether the “expert” should testify about it.
Well, the law in New Jersey is that YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SHOW A BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT. And, since that is the case, then you do not have to show it in court, and the testimony of an “expert” that it is forged is simply irrelevant.
Re: “Why would they not want him to testify should be the question.”
The hearing was not a trial for forgery. It was to determine whether Obama was eligible or not. There are birther “experts” who think it is forged, and other experts who think it is not forged. The place for their testimony is in a trial for forgery or at least in a state that requires that birth certificates be shown (apparently there are very few such states).
If you would like to change those laws to require birth certificates to be shown–for all candidates, of course, Democrat and Republican–then you have the right to petition those states’ legislatures and governors. But until such laws are passed, candidates do not have to show their birth certificates to any officials in those states.
Meanwhile, do not say that a lawyer said that the birth certificate is forged. It is not true, and it is idiotic to think that a lawyer would say “I admit that my client forged his birth certificate.”
Ms. Hill offered no evidence, but spent her time objecting to the entire case, to every witness whom Apuzzo called, and every document he tried to introduce. In every specific case, she said that the documents were neither originals nor certified copies. More generally, she said repeatedly that New Jersey law did not obligate Obama in any way to prove that he was eligible to the office of President. The only grounds for challenging a nominating petition, said Hill, were whether the petitions were in the proper form, all who signed were registered voters, no voter signed more than one petition, whether the campaign gathered enough signatures, etc.
About two-thirds of the way through the hearing, Hill admitted in open court something that no lawyer for the Obama campaign has ever admitted. Obama never furnished a true copy of his birth certificate to the New Jersey Secretary of State.
Judge Masin ruled that Obama was born in Hawaii with no evidence on record, after acknowledging that fact during the hearing.
Judge Masin ruled that Obama need not comply with statute to show that he is eligible, solely because he need not “consent” to someone circulating a nominating petition for him.
The judge suggested that Obama might have to show eligibility later. He laid no basis for such a ruling.
The judge misread the precedents and gave short shrift to the historical evidence that the Framers of the Constitution defined “natural-born citizen” as one born in-country to two citizen parents. Apuzzo devoted half of his 30-page exception to this analysis alone.
ehancockadoodledoo! So you accept the fact that an alien citizen, illegally in the US, can Occupy the WH and act as president after lying about his birth, being a law professor, and admitting that his father was not a US Citizen?
Fantastic. What do you believe in? Is being an American of any importance to you? If it is not, why are you still in America? Could you dare comment under your real name?
The law in New Jersey is that you do not have to show your birth certificate to run for president. There is no law that says that you have to show your birth certificate to run for president. That’s the law. Obama’s lawyer was right to point that out. If you do not like the situation, you have the right to petition the legislature and Governor Christie to change the law, but unless and until they do, that is the law.
The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law, not from Vattel, and the key precedent is the Wong Kim Ark case (which was AFTER Minor vs Happersett and hence would have overturned it, if Minor had actually been a ruling on the matter, and it wasn’t), and the Wong Kim Ark case ruled (six justices to two, one not voting) that EVERY child born in the USA-except for the children of foreign diplomats–is NATURAL BORN.
There have now been four state courts (Indiana, Georgia, Arizona [which specifically said that Minor vs Happersett was not a precedent]and New Jersey) and one federal court, all of which have ruled specifically that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen under the Wong Kim Ark ruling. And there have been several other courts that have defined the US-born children of foreigners as Natural Born Citizens.
Quite right.
@ ehancok: To clarify, Obama’s attorney Alexandra Hill did not come out and directly admit the birth certificate was a forgery, she did it by STIPULATION, by implication. A correct title for this article could be “Obama Lawyer Implies Birth Certificate Is A Forgery”, with the emphasis on “Implies”..
Simonson,
I understand the news media are required to submit their articles for approval by Obama’s staff before they are allowed to be printed.
If that’s a fact, we then know why there isn’t a negative report on him.
Does any leftist, brainwashed or unclued un American, care about truth? How about the WH and the Pentagon refusing to admit that shooting around 50 US un armed soldiers and a baby, can not be accepted as being defined by Obama as a “Working Place ACCIDENT”, when it is a clear TERRORISM ACT, realized by an Islamist yelling “Allahu Akbar”, while reloading. Finally he shot a POLICEWOMAN, which in itself is a high crime. But, due to Obama´s protection, the terrorist is still receiving pay, being cared for and isn´t really jailed, while his victims and families have not been duly take care for. So, Obama privileges a brother in Islam, to all of America, while guys like you, the blacks and the Latinos as well as the mainstream media, couldn´t care less.