[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Ron Paul See other Ron Paul Articles Title: Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery but disregards “image” as Indication of Obama’s Ineligibility Damage Control A recent ballot challenge hearing in New Jersey exposes a desperate strategy by Obama to distance himself from his forged certificate and induce the contrived value of his transient political popularity as the only legitimate qualification needed to hold the office of the presidency. NEW YORK, NY After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obamas 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 Obamas ineligibility in a court of law. Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obamas lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obamas 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 Obamas 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 Obamas 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 candidates 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, Obamas 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 cant 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, Obamas 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. Obamas 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 Obamas 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. Thats 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 Obamas 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 Gods 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 cant 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. The account of the trial can be read at: http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/04/11/nj-ballot-access-challenge-hearing-update/ ### Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#6. To: Ada (#0)
Despite this claim that Obama's lawyer admitted a "forgery", the 3-hour video of the court hearing shows no such admission. Nor did the birthers' pleading filed in that court case dare to make such a claim to the very judge who would have heard such an admission. This claim of "forgery" exists only in the propaganda that the birthers are spinning now that they've lost the case. They lost the case??! Yes, you might not have tumbled to that fact by the way they were crowing about this imaginary admission but yes they went down on all counts. At a crucial point, the birthers even tried to argue that it didn't matter that Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate was authentic because they had a notion (which runs contrary to American law) that a "natural-born citizen" must also have one or both parents who are also US citizens. The closest the Obama lawyer came to admitting anything was the very obvious and indisputable statement that the internet image of the Hawaiian birth certificate was not, itself, a legally satisfactory substitute for the actual paper document with the impression seal --- if there were any proceeding in which the paper document were required.
#7. To: Shoonra (#6)
You must surely be living in some alternate plane of existence. When the shat started to hit the fan regarding the release of this "new" birth certificate; Bin Laden was killed (again). I don't want to contemplate what they'll pull if this starts to gain traction again.
Attaboy! Keep catapulting the propaganda/psyops. The problem is that the noose is closing in, metaphorically of course, and that the Faker In Chief is increasingly being recognized as illegitimate. Soon it will be only the "Kool-Aid for Lunch Bunch". He is NOT a Natural Born Citizen and no amount of PROPAGANDA spew can make him one. He is likely not even in the country legally given that he came here from Indonesia on a Student Visa for which there is NO RECORD that it was ever renewed. He IS an illegal alien. That is the REAL 800 pound Gorilla. Q. What does a 200 pound Canary say while walking down an alley? A. Here, Kitty, Kitty, Kitty!
by the power of numb-skull you are she ra!
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|