Saturday, April 14, 2012

OBAMA LAWYER ADMITS FORGERY BUT DISREGARDS "IMAGE" AS INDICATION OF OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY

After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama’s ineligibility in a court of law.

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”.

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.

Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. Dedicated_DadApril 14, 2012 at 9:15 PM

    The article you linked contains a link to the article it used as its only apparent source http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/04/11/nj-ballot-access-challenge-hearing-update/

    The latter says NOTHING in re: admitting any forgery, she merely stipulated that the Internet image could not be used to determine his eligibility.

    This is bs...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dedicated_DadApril 14, 2012 at 9:21 PM

    Put another way, she admitted that an internet image - ANY internet image - was not the same as a hard copy.

    There was NOTHING on the attorney's article about admitting a forgery, or claiming it was satire meant to screw with his opponents or whatever.

    This "Daily Pen" stuff SEEMS TO be made up out of whole cloth.

    Obviously I wish it weren't so, sorry to be the bearer of bad news...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brock TownsendApril 14, 2012 at 9:25 PM

    Here is the rationale and check this out.

    Occupation: Constitutional Defense Lawyer
    Location: Mombosa, Kenya

    ======
    Penbrook One Apr 13, 2012 01:07 PM

    Justin,

    The online image was a representation of official record which was...

    A.) Chosen by an alleged president to be published in the form of an online image, not in paper form and;
    B.) Intended by Obama to provide evidentiary proof that he was born in the U.S., thus;
    C.) Serve as proof of natural-born citizenry, thus;
    D.) Serve as a legally represented version of an authentic original record from an official state agency that he is eligible to be president.

    Any judge or jury asked to consider the reasons for the image being posted would come to the same conclusions of its intended purpose. Then they would be provided with evidence from an official law enforcement investigation which shows that it is not authentic. Therefore...

    The fact that Ms. Hill, in representing Obama, admitted that such a form of this record cannot be used to prove these claims by Obama, she is admitting that the image is not a truthful representation of those claims. Therefore, it must be a false representation of those claims otherwise, why did Obama choose to publish this record if not to provide proof of his eligibility? Website decoration?

    It is time to stop forsaking the blood-ransomed Constitution just to protect this lying degenerate.

    Time to grow up.

    DC

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousApril 15, 2012 at 11:31 AM

    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

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)