It appears the web is a buzz with information concerning the New Jersey court contest in regards to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be on the state’s ballot. At the center of the controversy now is the fact that Barack Obama’s own lawyer has apparently conceded the fact that the document is a forgery.
According to TeaPartyTribune.com, attorney Alexandra Hill, of the Newark-based law firm Genova, Burn and Giantomasi, 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. She concluded her analysis of the online birth certificate arguing that it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.
She then went on to try and establish his eligibility by speaking of his political popularity, not legal qualification, in order to be a candidate!
Penbrook Johannson, editor for The Daily Pen said, “Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified. 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.”
So what this comes down to is legal tip toeing around the issue. Let me put it simply. Obama’s own lawyer admits that the birth certificate which was put out by the White House is a forgery. The forgery does not prove Obama is not a “natural born” citizen since it is a forgery. Therefore, the plaintiffs have not made their case and Barack Obama should be left on the ballot. I’ll bet Mr. “It depends on what is, is” was behind this bit of legal wrangling.
As far as I can see that makes it a bigger issue than just that of the State of New Jersey. This is most definitely a national issue. The President of the United States’ own lawyer has just stated unequivocally that the President knowingly put out a forged document and claimed it was his birth certificate. Ladies and gentlemen, why in the world then, is there no immediate cries for impeachment and more than that, charges of treason brought against Barack Hussein Obama?
I’ll tell you why. It’s an election year for one. Two you have a Democrat led Senate that will never vote to convict him. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it as their duty, but sadly the reality is that impeachment proceedings against a sitting President are purely political. However, I would hope that the Republican led Congress might get some brass ones and begin the proceedings anyway, letting people know they intend to carry out impeachment, even if Barack Obama is elected again and to encourage others to vote in those who are principled enough to uphold the Constitution, especially when it comes to a usurper in the Oval Offfice.
In a nut shell, the above is exactly why Barack Obama and the Democratic Party do not fear mocking the American people with their blatant forgery, lies and manipulation of the Constitution and the facts. In order to remove the man it would have to be done by force or by impeachment and impeachment will never happen with the way things are now. It is my opinion that since our military takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from both enemies foreign and domestic, that they should be looking at the evidence and act accordingly.
Tim Brown FrontPorchPolitics.com
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 04-17-2012).]
That is quite an admission if true. But it does not disprove that Obama was born here. It just shows that the birth certificate circulated was forged.
You would think that the President would have put a stop to it immediately. I know what my birth certificate looks like. If someone was circulating a forgery, I would tell them to stop.
Will Snopes change their page and admit they were wrong?
You wanna' know why I don't like throwing up, disspite the fact that I feel better afterward? Becouse I have to taste my own puke. But there are actually people who do it all the time to lose weight.
So I guess you can get used to tasting your own puke. But is that really worth feeling good?
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 04-17-2012).]
You wanna' know why I don't like throwing up, disspite the fact that I feel better afterward? Becouse I have to taste my own puke. But there are actually people who do it all the time to lose weight.
So I guess you can get used to tasting your own puke. But is that really worth feeling good?
It might have a lot to due with the amount of time the person takes to digest. If you get it down and right back up it is still more or less food. If you let it sit for a while, where you actually have to think about it, you would then think twice about it because of the taste.
That is quite an admission if true. But it does not disprove that Obama was born here. It just shows that the birth certificate circulated was forged.
You would think that the President would have put a stop to it immediately. I know what my birth certificate looks like. If someone was circulating a forgery, I would tell them to stop.
Will Snopes change their page and admit they were wrong?
While admitting this is a forgery does NOT disprove his legitimacy to run, it DOES give us another VERY good reason to distrust EVERYTHING he's said or ever will say.
I think the axiom "where there's smoke, there's fire" applies well in this case. Anyone of us who was not interested in getting dragged into a sideshow over nothing would have opened the record on the Birth Certificate from day 1. Obama has deliberately hidden the details of his birth, posted faked Birth Certificates on the White House web site, and continues to make the original Long Form Certificate unavailable for review by authorities.
Non of this is proof of diddly squat, but if a guy is caught standing over a body with a bloody knife in his hand...he is going to be detained for questioning! Why does Obama get a pass?
Here's a link to the summary made by Attorney Mario Apuzzo who submitted the eligibility objection to Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, at the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law on April 10, 2012. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Here's a quote from the above document that relates directly to the issue.
After calling to the witness stand Mr. Moran and Mr. Purpura, who gave testimony as to why they brought the ballot challenge, and introducing documents showing there is a question as to Mr. Obama’s identity,petitioners called Brian Wilcox to testify as an internet image expert. Mr.Wilcox was going to testify on how the Obama April 27, 2011, long-form birth certificate has been altered and manipulated either by computer software or by a human or both, producing a forged documents, and that since the image is not reliable, we need to see the original paper version.Respondent’s lawyer objected to the proffered testimony. Petitioners then offered that they would not need to have Mr. Wilcox testify, provided that Obama stipulated that the internet image of his birth certificate could not be used as evidence by either Judge Masin or the New Jersey Secretary of States and that he presented to the court or the Secretary of State no other evidence of his identity or place of birth. Judge Masin also asked Obama’s attorney whether she would so stipulate. She did so stipulate, agreeing that both the court and the Secretary of State cannot rely on the internet birth certificate as evidence of Obama’s place of birth and that Obama has produced no other evidence to the court regarding his place of birth. She also argued that Obama has no legal obligation to produce any such evidence to get on the primary ballot.
Here's a link to the bio of Attorney Alexandra M. Hill. http://www.genovaburns.com/..._detail.aspx?aid=103 Attorney Apuzzo doesn't have a website, just a blog. However, here's some biographical info pulled from another site.
Mario Apuzzo was born on June 30, 1956. He graduated from Jamesburg High School in New Jersey in 1975. He obtained his undergraduate degree in Political Science from Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, PA. He then attended Temple University School of Law in Philadelphia, from which he graduated with a Juris Doctorate degree in 1982. He then continued his post-graduate legal studies at the University of the Pacific in Sacramento, CA, at its McGeorge School of Law and in Salzburg, Austria, which also included coursework in Milan, Italy, receiving a Diploma in Advanced International Legal Studies in 1983. He has also studied comparative international law at Temple University, in Rome, and has pursued a second law degree in the European civil law system at the University of Naples.
Mr. Apuzzo founded his law firm in 1983, at which time he went into private practice in New Jersey. He currently has his law offices at 185 Gatzmer Avenue, Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831. He is engaged in the general practice of law which includes trials and appellate work in both the state and federal courts.
Regarding the Obama eligibility controversy, Attorney Apuzzo published his first blog entry on December 20, 2008 after having followed and contributed to the postings on the websites of Leo Donofrio and Orly Taitz. Commander Charles Kerchner was put in touch with Attorney Apuzzo by an acquaintance who had known he had been seeking an attorney to challenge Congress and Obama regarding Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
Please read the entire statements of all parties related to the complaint as presented to the Court and attempt to determine where Obama's attorney stated the document was "forged." I was unable to locate such a reference. IMO, while stating that she (Hill) agreed with the court that they could not "rely on the internet birth certificate as evidence of Obama’s place of birth and that Obama has produced no other evidence to the court regarding his place of birth", that in itself does not constitute a statement that the document is a "forgery." Also, she argued successfully that "Obama has no legal obligation to produce any such evidence to get on the primary ballot" in the State of New Jersey.
The next step for the complainants (should they choose to pursue it) is an appeal directly to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 04-17-2012).]
You wanna' know why I don't like throwing up, disspite the fact that I feel better afterward? Becouse I have to taste my own puke. But there are actually people who do it all the time to lose weight.
So I guess you can get used to tasting your own puke. But is that really worth feeling good?
Eat lots of bananas--they taste the same going both directions. (advice courtesy of JStricker)
I just have one question. If in the end his presidency is proved to be illegal, do we get the stimulus, cash for clunkers and all of the wasted solar money back?
While admitting this is a forgery does NOT disprove his legitimacy to run, it DOES give us another VERY good reason to distrust EVERYTHING he's said or ever will say.
If it was admitted to being a forgery, then fraud has taken place and there should be people going to jail. Or it could just be people stirring up what isn't there to distract attention from something else ( look.. shiny object. ooooo ) and has no real basis in fact.
I just have one question. If in the end his presidency is proved to be illegal, do we get the stimulus, cash for clunkers and all of the wasted solar money back?
You have to ask? Does the feds ever give anything back?
if it was a real documented statement from his attorney, i will have to totally disagree. It wont matter where he was born, fraud was perpetrated and must be dealt with, unless the law doesn't apply since its tied to The O.
Doctors report the in the last three years there has been a huge increase in folks puking in their mouths, it is called "Voters Remorse Syndrome". The remedy for it is called the "New China" cure"!
Here's a link to the summary made by Attorney Mario Apuzzo who submitted the eligibility objection to Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, at the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law on April 10, 2012. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Here's a quote from the above document that relates directly to the issue.
After calling to the witness stand Mr. Moran and Mr. Purpura, who gave testimony as to why they brought the ballot challenge, and introducing documents showing there is a question as to Mr. Obama’s identity,petitioners called Brian Wilcox to testify as an internet image expert. Mr.Wilcox was going to testify on how the Obama April 27, 2011, long-form birth certificate has been altered and manipulated either by computer software or by a human or both, producing a forged documents, and that since the image is not reliable, we need to see the original paper version.Respondent’s lawyer objected to the proffered testimony. Petitioners then offered that they would not need to have Mr. Wilcox testify, provided that Obama stipulated that the internet image of his birth certificate could not be used as evidence by either Judge Masin or the New Jersey Secretary of States and that he presented to the court or the Secretary of State no other evidence of his identity or place of birth. Judge Masin also asked Obama’s attorney whether she would so stipulate. She did so stipulate, agreeing that both the court and the Secretary of State cannot rely on the internet birth certificate as evidence of Obama’s place of birth and that Obama has produced no other evidence to the court regarding his place of birth. She also argued that Obama has no legal obligation to produce any such evidence to get on the primary ballot.
Here's a link to the bio of Attorney Alexandra M. Hill. http://www.genovaburns.com/..._detail.aspx?aid=103 Attorney Apuzzo doesn't have a website, just a blog. However, here's some biographical info pulled from another site.
Mario Apuzzo was born on June 30, 1956. He graduated from Jamesburg High School in New Jersey in 1975. He obtained his undergraduate degree in Political Science from Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, PA. He then attended Temple University School of Law in Philadelphia, from which he graduated with a Juris Doctorate degree in 1982. He then continued his post-graduate legal studies at the University of the Pacific in Sacramento, CA, at its McGeorge School of Law and in Salzburg, Austria, which also included coursework in Milan, Italy, receiving a Diploma in Advanced International Legal Studies in 1983. He has also studied comparative international law at Temple University, in Rome, and has pursued a second law degree in the European civil law system at the University of Naples.
Mr. Apuzzo founded his law firm in 1983, at which time he went into private practice in New Jersey. He currently has his law offices at 185 Gatzmer Avenue, Jamesburg, New Jersey 08831. He is engaged in the general practice of law which includes trials and appellate work in both the state and federal courts.
Regarding the Obama eligibility controversy, Attorney Apuzzo published his first blog entry on December 20, 2008 after having followed and contributed to the postings on the websites of Leo Donofrio and Orly Taitz. Commander Charles Kerchner was put in touch with Attorney Apuzzo by an acquaintance who had known he had been seeking an attorney to challenge Congress and Obama regarding Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
Please read the entire statements of all parties related to the complaint as presented to the Court and attempt to determine where Obama's attorney stated the document was "forged." I was unable to locate such a reference. IMO, while stating that she (Hill) agreed with the court that they could not "rely on the internet birth certificate as evidence of Obama’s place of birth and that Obama has produced no other evidence to the court regarding his place of birth", that in itself does not constitute a statement that the document is a "forgery." Also, she argued successfully that "Obama has no legal obligation to produce any such evidence to get on the primary ballot" in the State of New Jersey.
The next step for the complainants (should they choose to pursue it) is an appeal directly to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division.
So, if an image of his birth certificate can't be used in a court of law, why should we, as the American Public, accept it? I, personally, don't care one way or the other beyond setting a potentially dangerous precident for future elections, because the damage has been done and, as it stands now, cannot and will not be undone.
So, if an image of his birth certificate can't be used in a court of law, why should we, as the American Public, accept it? I, personally, don't care one way or the other beyond setting a potentially dangerous precident for future elections, because the damage has been done and, as it stands now, cannot and will not be undone.
Obviously, that's the reason so many states are requiring proof to get on the ballot now. One has to wonder how this will play out in the end. As to why the American voter accepts him, I'm the last guy to answer that question. There are folks (as can be evidenced in this and other threads) that don't agree with our constitution, just like those that have been in charge the last few years. Why some voter's drink that Kool Aide is explained in my sig. At least, that's the only reason ($$$) I can come up with. Sad but true, when you're on the receiving end of the bennefits train, you don't want it to end.
------------------ Ron The key thing is to wake up breathing! All the rest can be fixed. (Except Stupid - You can't fix that) Always remember these words of wisdom.
"The Lord must truly love fools, for he made them in abundance."
An attorney representing Barack Obama has argued in court that the long-form birth certificate image released by the White House nearly a year ago should not be placed into evidence.
It was April 10 at a three-hour eligibility hearing before a New Jersey administrative law judge that Alexandra Hill made the argument.
Hill, legal counsel representing Obama’s re-election campaign, argued that New Jersey law does not require Obama to present a valid birth certificate to establish his qualifications under Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution and be placed on the New Jersey Democratic Party primary ballot.
Hill repeatedly explained to Judge Jeff S. Masin, “We do not believe the president’s birth certificate is relevant to this case.”
Agreeing with Hill, Masin ruled in a written opinion the same day that New Jersey law does not require Obama to produce any proof he is eligible to be president to be placed on the primary ballot.
Noting that New Jersey law allows a nominating petition endorsing a particular person for president to be filed without the consent of the person endorsed, Masin said, “There is no obligation upon the person endorsed to prove his or her qualification for office.”
At the hearing, Masin prevented petitioner’s counsel Mario Apuzzo, who has argued a number of eligibility cases in court, from placing Obama’s birth certificate into evidence. Nor was Apuzzo allowed to call to the stand a witness willing to offer expert testimony that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.
Is Obama ready to throw the birth certificate under the bus?
“What is emerging in the various state legal challenges to including President Obama on the presidential ballot appears to be an attempt by the White House to divorce itself from the Obama long-form birth certificate released,” said Mike Zullo, the lead investigator in Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s law enforcement investigation into Obama’s birth certificate and eligibility to be president.
Challenges to Obama’s name on the 2012 election ballot have appeared in more than half a dozen states already.
At a press conference in Phoenix on March 1, Arpaio announced his law enforcement investigators had established probable cause that Obama’s birth certificate and his Selective Service Registration forms are forgeries.
Zullo questioned why the White House did not instruct Hill to champion the birth certificate as legitimate.
“The White House appears to be acting as if the Obama birth certificate is of no consequence in establishing the fact of Obama’s birth,” Zullo continued.
“Instead of producing the birth certificate to the New Jersey secretary of state and arguing to Judge Masin that the document was legitimate, Obama’s legal counsel did everything she could to keep the document from coming into evidence. Why?”
Reviewing the three-hour court hearing, it is clear Hill remained adamant on the birth certificate being irrelevant in New Jersey.
Hill affirmed to Masin in response to a direct question from the bench that Obama’s birth certificate had never been presented to the New Jersey secretary of state to establish his eligibility, and she affirmed that the Obama re-election campaign had no intention of doing so.
At one point in the hearing, Masin, apparently agreeing with Hill’s argument, dramatically explained to Apuzzo that Obama’s birth certificate was not at issue in the case.
“I have nothing before me that I can look at and can say, ‘Okay, this is what has been produced as his [Obama’s] birth certificate,’” the judge said from the bench.
“There is nothing here,” he continued, referring to the birth certificate. “The campaign has not produced me anything, and I assume you’re not planning on doing that. The campaign hasn’t shown me anything on the Internet. There’s no birth certificate that has been presented to me – good, bad, indifferent, real, forged, certified, anything – it’s not here.”
Apuzzo pressed to be put on the record a stipulation by White House counsel that the Obama campaign was not utilizing the long-form birth certificate as proof that Obama was born in Hawaii or as proof he was qualified to be president as a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution.
In response, Hill repeated she had no intention of presenting Obama’s birth certificate to the court.
“It’s not here,” she told Masin. “I don’t have it.”
“There appears to be no affirmative requirement that a person endorsed in a nominating petition for the presidency present to the Secretary of State any certification or other proof that he is qualified for the office, at least not at the time when nominating petitions are to be accepted or rejected by the secretary,” Masin wrote in his decision.
“In this matter, as the petitioners’ objection is that Mr. Obama has not provided the secretary with proof of the place of his birth by means of a birth certificate or otherwise, the lack of any obligation on his part to do so means he has not failed to act in accordance with the applicable law.”
It will be SO nice when this is irrelevant after Obama gets his ass handed to him in November.
Maybe it's gone unnoticed for the past 3 years but this BS is "irrelevant" NOW.....that's how long people have been listening to it and Obama's still POTUS.
It will be SO nice when this is irrelevant after Obama gets his ass handed to him in November.
Lets assume that what his attorney said is correct, and it was fraud. How does him not being in office make fraud irrelevant? Or are you saying that if you commit fraud, get elected and if you just stall long enough it becomes ok?
( not flaming, just confused why a crime becomes irrelevant if hes out of office, and it has nothign to do with The O, id say the same for any elected official )
[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 04-18-2012).]
Here is what I am seeing, to simplify things hopefully.
A Lawyer for the Tea Party, and a Lawyer for President Obama are standing there.
The TP Lawyer says, "Obama can put his name on the ballot with no arguments as long as he has proof that he is a Natural Born Citizen."
The PO Lawyer replies " We don't have to prove anything, we are not going to."
The TP Lawyer, "OK, we will take you to court, it will cost many thousands of dollars, and cost you votes in the election." PO Lawyer, "Sounds good."
President Obama has nothing to gain by fighting this if he is in fact a Natural Born Citizen, and everything to lose if he isn't, so why is he fighting in court? Why not simply produce the real birth certificate?
I would like to hear some reasons here, as I can't think of any.
It comes down to this: Are you the sort of person who would really stand by and let a man in a position of power change the face and future of your country for the worse just because it would be too hard or unpopular to prove that he doesn’t belong in that position in the first place?
It’s beyond disheartening to watch judge after judge, court after court find reasons not to listen to evidence that President Obama’s birth certificate, and hence his eligibility to hold the office, is faked.
But there are no words to describe the feeling when a judge, who is sworn to uphold the Constitution, rules that a candidate for the presidency doesn’t have to prove his eligibility for the office at all, as happened recently in a New Jersey courtroom.
Just to twist the knife a bit, Obama’s attorney in the case, Alexandra Hill, seemed to give indications that the White House was trying to distance itself from the birth certificate it issued on its own website, according to Jerome Corsi, who is probably the only journalist in America still following the eligibility story.
There is no one reason that can illuminate the near-total lack of interest in Obama’s eligibility to hold office, either before he was elected or since. The dismissive attitude toward an issue that should have barred Obama from ever entering the White House as anything but part of a tour group simply defies any logical explanation.
Power, corruption, false identities, rumors of violent threats — the eligibility issue is among the vastest of conspiracies hiding in broad daylight.
The courts, media and politicians just won’t hear anything of it.
Many people believe that even if it could be proved, the birth certificate simply doesn’t matter because Obama was elected, regardless if he meets the criteria of the Constitution or if we even know his real identity.
So why does the question linger?
Because a substantial portion of the American people smell a lie.
Some polls have found fewer than four in 10 Americans believe the president was born in the U.S.
Even that number seems high when any calm, rational look is taken at the evidence: the obviously computer-generated birth certificate, the evasiveness about where the certificate was, the millions of dollars spent to prevent any airing of the issue in court, the allegations about false Social Security numbers, the testimony from Obama’s own relatives and from others who seem to have some knowledge of the president’s past, and so on.
Someday, the true story of Barack Obama will be written. It may resemble his autobiographies, or it may reveal how a circle of powerful people “created” a candidate from whole cloth and manipulated him into office in plain sight of the people.
The real question is will you be able to look back and say you were one of those who did something about it at the time and rose to the defense of your country?
Mickey Mouse could be placed as a candidate on the New Jersey Democratic Party presidential primary ballot, an attorney representing Barack Obama argued in court to support her claim that state law does not require Obama to prove he is eligible. At the hearing before New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin April 10, Hill maneuvered to avoid having to enter into evidence Obama’s long-form birth certificate the White House released nearly a year ago as proof Obama was born in Hawaii.
Everybody has known the birth certificate that he released was fake. A very poorly made fake at that. Even if the information on it is 100% accurate, that was a forged document.
We have the ability to make a forgery so accurate no one outside of government would be able to tell. It was poorly done on purpose. He's been trolling the American people since day one. He's been doing it as if to dare anyone to call him on it. What are you going to do if you find out a sitting president was not legally eligible to hold the office? Congress wouldn't do anything. Democrats would refuse to admit they were duped.
He had no reason to make a good forgery. He plays American citizens for fools whether it's accurate birth data or not.
Democrats like having a playa president. All the cool kids have tingles running down their leg when they think of him. Besides, the alternative is President Biden.
So, all the insults and derogatory remarks about those who questioned his birth certificate, where is the mass public apology from the left? Birther was turned into a term as ugly as racist. Typically how the left deals with anything, question us and we will find a way to make you racist.
Two things need to happen.
1. The right needs to make a very real stand. 2. The left needs to admit they were wrong, and the labeling needs to stop now.
In case anyone missed this. Notice the lame excuses they give to spin this. It's just too funny!
