Obama Lawyer ADMITS IN COURT BC Is Forged in forum [FedUp]
Pika-steph Posts: 54371 Incept: 2007-09-11 Live Free Or Die; US Army Est. 1775	<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OwmfisorUcc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AHKJQ__W_4k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> WHERE IS THE MEDIA?!! YES, THIS IS REAL. NO, THIS IS NOT TIN. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JohAu0BR_w0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>   Quote: OBAMA LAWYER ADMITS FORGERY BUT DISREGARDS “IMAGE” AS INDICATION OF OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY 4-11-12 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. By Dan Crosby of THE DAILY PEN NEW YORK, NY – 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”. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_grIjyq5y-w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> 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. The account of the trial can be read at: http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/04/1.... http://theobamahustle.wordpress.com/2012.... From Mario Apuzzo, Esq.'s Blog Quote: Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. April 10, 2012 Today, April 10, 2012, Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran had their Barack Obama primary ballot objection heard by Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey 08619. The case started about 9:30 a.m. and lasted to about 1:00 p.m. I represented the Objectors. Mr. Obama was represented by Alexandra Hill of the firm of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi of Newark, New Jersey. We argued that Mr. Obama has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is a “natural born Citizen.” We argued that he has not presented any evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing who he is and that he was born in the United States. We 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. Obama’s attorney made a motion to dismiss the Objection in its entirety. She argued that it was not relevant to being placed on the ballot whether Mr. Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” where he was born, and whether he was born to U.S. citizen parents. She said that no law in New Jersey obligated him to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot. We argued that Mr. Obama under the Constitution has to be a “natural born Citizen.” We argued that under New Jersey law (the state constitution, statutes, and case law), Mr. Obama must show 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. We argued that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot. Judge Masin denied Obama’s motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial. 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, I 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. Obama’s lawyer objected to my proffered testimony. I then offered that I 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. Judge Masin then took the issue under advisement. Having produced absolutely no evidence of his eligibility for the Office of President, Judge Masin will decide whether as a matter of law Obama has a legal duty to produce such evidence before he may be placed on the New Jersey ballot in light of the pending objection filed against him. If he decides that he does, then the Objection will be successful. If he decides that Obama has no such legal obligation, the Objection would fail on the first issue. The second issue that Judge Masin addressed was whether the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” includes the requirement that the child be born to two U.S. citizen parents. Judge Masin relied heavily upon the fact that no court in the nation has yet ruled that Mr. Obama had to have two U.S. citizen parents at the time of his birth. I explained that most cases regarding Mr. Obama have been ruled in his favor on procedural grounds rather than on the merits of the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” He relied heavily upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and its use of the English common law to define U.S. citizenship. We also discussed the Indiana Ankeny decision and the Georgia ballot access cases. I explained how Wong did not hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen,” but only a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment which does not define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” I explained that Wong distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen,” explaining how Justice Gray used Horace Binney’s distinction between both classes of citizens. I argued that it is error to rely upon Wong as though it held Wong to be a “natural born Citizen.” I argued that the Founders and Framers did not adopt the English common law to define the term, but rather natural law and the law of nations which under Article III became part of the “Laws of the United States.” I explained that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” comes from natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Emer de Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations (1758), which definition was recognized as American “common-law” in Minor v. Happersett (1875). I also explained that Wong Kim Ark confirmed Minor’s definition (a child born in a country to citizen parents) and did not change it. I explained that Congress through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 abrogated the English common law as the law to define U.S. citizenship and that through those acts it told us that a child born in the United States to alien parents was an alien and not a “citizen of the United States.” I went through the historical evidence, including but not limited to Emer de Vattel and St. George Tucker, which shows that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents and not as the English common law defined a “natural born subject.” I explained how Madison wrote to Washington that at the constitutional convention, the delegates did not adopt the English common law for the new republic. I explained that the English common law continued to have effect in the states, even being included in their constitutions and statutes, but not on the federal level where both the Constitution and Acts of Congress did not do the same as the states did. I explained that there is a constitutional distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen,” and that the two terms cannot be conflated and confounded as per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, who told us that each clause of the Constitution must be given its own meaning. Judge Masin also reserved decision on the question of whether a “natural born Citizen” must be born to two U.S. citizen parents. Judge Masin will be contacting counsel today or tomorrow morning either by telephone or email as to his decision, stating “yes” or “no” on both issues. He will then provide his written decision to the Secretary of State no later than Wednesday, April 11, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel will be able to object to Judge Masin’s initial decision. The Secretary of State will make the final decision. After her decision, the parties can then appeal to the New Jersey Appellate Division and then to the New Jersey Supreme Court. After that, the parties can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. April 10, 2011 Update April 9, 2012 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ #### Legal Documents: Objection: http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/88885325-P.... ---------- Stop the Looting; Start Prosecuting - http://www.FedUpUSA.org/ "The only regulation that really works is failure."--Rick Santelli Last modified: 2012-04-14 12:22:27 by pika-steph 2012-04-14 12:03:07 Permalink
Uppity_peasant Posts: 2969 Incept: 2009-06-26	Quote: “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.” ---------- ==== If it's true that "assault weapons" are "weapons of war" and don't belong on the streets of America, why do the police need them? Who are the police at war with? 2012-04-14 12:14:48 Permalink
Pika-steph Posts: 54371 Incept: 2007-09-11 Live Free Or Die; US Army Est. 1775	HEARING: 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwmfisorU.... 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHKJQ__W_.... 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JohAu0BR_.... New Jersey Hearing: Obama Lawyer Says Obama Does Not Have to Prove Eligibility - 4/10/2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_grIjyq5y.... Unfortunately, Apuzzo's claim is not one of fraud; what is at issue is WHAT was given to The Secretary of State, if anything. Apparently, NJ doesn't have a requirement for producing a LFBC. This means the LFBC that is on the WH website is irrelevant to this case, because not only was it not presented to the NJ Secretary of State, there was no requirement to do so. The judge even alludes to the idea that a case elsewhere, where a BC is required for ballot eligibility, Apuzzo's argument would have much more weight. The judge cannot hold Obama to a standard that the State of NJ does not have. ---------- Stop the Looting; Start Prosecuting - http://www.FedUpUSA.org/ "The only regulation that really works is failure."--Rick Santelli Last modified: 2012-04-14 12:31:49 by pika-steph 2012-04-14 12:14:49 Permalink
Frat Posts: 1829 Incept: 2009-07-15 NKY	Holy hot ****beans, it's over. Really. There's not respect or following of the law at the highest echelons of power, and the only ones who CAN do something about it are too busy protecting their own power base and covering their own asses, rather than actually protecting and serving the Constitution. There is no legitimate way out any longer. We're really, truly and hopelessly ****ed. I need a BIG ****ING DRINK. ---------- We're ****ed. 2012-04-14 12:40:04 Permalink
Antone Posts: 7205 Incept: 2008-02-03 Seditionia, USSA	You're only as ****ed as you let yourself be ****ed. Become empowered and untether yourself from your government masters. Those *******s play on fear and use it as their tool, so don't let them beat you down. ---------- Wis/Min wrote: I'm sorry BUT it's a dog. Jack_Jackson wrote: Detroit would bloom again if the under classes were brought under control by public or the police and stripped of their right to vote. 2012-04-14 12:48:07 From PDA Permalink
Jimpad Posts: 1058 Incept: 2009-05-28	Quote: You're only as ****ed as you let yourself be ****ed. Become empowered and untether yourself from your government masters. Yeah right, let us know when you don't file your taxes. 2012-04-14 12:53:09 Permalink
Sailordeek Posts: 539 Incept: 2011-06-08 Boston	If they didn't have this "under control" Zimmerman would have been arrested Friday. It will be interesting if any MSM picks this up? It is like saying, "I didn't rob the bank because the note was a forgery." Or, " I got elected by votes, not fraud, ves the votes were a fraud." 2012-04-14 13:11:37 Permalink
Agau Posts: 4456 Incept: 2010-06-04 Online	in video 2, at 32:00, they are discussing the birth certificate as Obama presented it on the internet. Obama's attorney clearly says "That was not the authentic document". The Plaintiff attorney says "That is our whole point" The Judge pussies out by saying "Well, neither I nor the Sec of State have the actual document so **** you" - maybe he should read an f'ing newspaper. The plaintiff attorney should have then demanded that the Judge allow a subpoena of the actual document to prove the eligibility cert to the Sec of State was false. 2012-04-14 13:42:35 Permalink
Pika-steph Posts: 54371 Incept: 2007-09-11 Live Free Or Die; US Army Est. 1775	Well, I just stuck my foot in it. For the first time, I've posted on FedUp's site about the BC issue. Let's see how much hate mail I get. http://www.fedupusa.org/2012/04/obama-la.... I also hotlinked to the WH website so that everyone can see the now admitted FORGED birth certificate is still on display, purporting in Obama's words, to be a 'true copy of the original.' I'm sure that hotlink is going to result in some 'scrutiny.' ---------- Stop the Looting; Start Prosecuting - http://www.FedUpUSA.org/ "The only regulation that really works is failure."--Rick Santelli 2012-04-14 13:44:31 Permalink
Widgeon Posts: 13481 Incept: 2007-08-30 Region formerly known as the United States	So now the POTUS is an admitted forger in a court of law. I suppose it's still too much to ask for an Impeachment? If only he was getting hummers from interns. 2012-04-14 16:16:12 Permalink
Pika-steph Posts: 54371 Incept: 2007-09-11 Live Free Or Die; US Army Est. 1775	The key here is not what the Obama attorney said, it is what she stipulated to. Since Obama himself made this assertion by vouching for its authenticity, this isn't a matter of 'Well, it's just an image and not the real thing.' Barak Obama stated, in the press conference when the BC was posted on the WH, that, 'This is a true and authentic copy of my original long form birth certificate.' Even the MSM carried that press conference. That's him. His statement to the American people, that he was vouching for the authenticity of this document. What would be the point in posting it otherwise, if not to quell the skeptics? That was the whole purpose of the exercise. This means that Obama himself is on record as asserting that what appears on the WH is 'authentic.' In this case, Mr. Wilcox, the expert witness offering estimony, was waived from appearance by Ms. Hill's stipulation that the WH BC could not be used as any evidence as to Obama's record of birth. Ms. Hill so stipulated. There is absolutely NO REASON to stipulate to the assertion that the WH BC is forged, and therefore inadmissalble, if it is in fact, legitimate. There would have been NO NEED for her to stipulate thereto. Her argument, that the NJ SoS doesn't require a birth certificate would have been sufficient to prevail in her argument. Yet, she stipulated. This will stand in further court proceedings, whether in NJ or other jurisdiction...where they may very well have requirements for presenting a BC for ballot eligibility. ---------- Stop the Looting; Start Prosecuting - http://www.FedUpUSA.org/ "The only regulation that really works is failure."--Rick Santelli Last modified: 2012-04-14 16:22:59 by pika-steph 2012-04-14 16:22:01 Permalink
Throxxofvron Posts: 10030 Incept: 2009-02-17 Hyper-Speculative Psycho-Facsistic Parabolic Blow-Off	Quote: everyone can see the now admitted FORGED birth certificate is still on display, purporting in Obama's words, to be a 'true copy of the original.' Conspiracy of Treason. ---------- DIONYSUS: " Thou hast no knowledge of the life thou art leading; thy very existence is now a mystery to thee. " -from 'The Bacchantes' By Euripides “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” -George Orwell 2012-04-14 16:41:00 Permalink
Widgeon Posts: 13481 Incept: 2007-08-30 Region formerly known as the United States	I put this down in Tinfoil. Can't anyone put two consecutive thoughts together? "BC is not required for NJ Ballot ... but, I presume a LEGAL CANDIDATE IS REQUIRED? No? So now there is a presumption that the candidate is NOT LEGAL ... and the burden ought to be on them to prove their legality." 2012-04-14 16:44:50 Permalink
Pika-steph Posts: 54371 Incept: 2007-09-11 Live Free Or Die; US Army Est. 1775	Depends upon what the State of New Jersey's REQUIREMENT is for 'legal candidate.' Apparently that definition does NOT include verification of live birth. ---------- Stop the Looting; Start Prosecuting - http://www.FedUpUSA.org/ "The only regulation that really works is failure."--Rick Santelli 2012-04-14 17:06:19 Permalink
Widgeon Posts: 13481 Incept: 2007-08-30 Region formerly known as the United States	But, when you can't produce a legal BC and have even offered up a forged one, then the presumption has changed ... the candidate must prove their legality. They are welcome to try some means other than a BC ... but it must be proved. It's a very similar argument to that used (correctly) by KD that 'laws" concerning the "right" to own guns, etc. are immaterial and superfluous because such laws mean nothing in the face of the Constitution ... similarly, whatever the state "requires" for legality is superfluous in the face of the requirement stated in the Constitution. 2012-04-14 17:14:03 Permalink
Pika-steph Posts: 54371 Incept: 2007-09-11 Live Free Or Die; US Army Est. 1775	But it could NOT be established that Obama had offered up ANYTHING. For all we know he had to present his drivers license and that was it. So, this still does not shift the burden of proof to the defendant. I understand what you're trying to get at, but you can't get there from here. Not in NJ anyway. The judge clearly alluded to this being an entirely different situation if it were in a jurisdiction whereby a BC was required for a candidate to be on the ballot. ---------- Stop the Looting; Start Prosecuting - http://www.FedUpUSA.org/ "The only regulation that really works is failure."--Rick Santelli 2012-04-14 17:17:43 Permalink
Widgeon Posts: 13481 Incept: 2007-08-30 Region formerly known as the United States	And I understand your point too. I just think the better explanation for the Judge's "answer" is that he is searching for any reason at all to get this hot potato off his docket ASAP. 2012-04-14 17:20:17 Permalink
Vegasradar Posts: 8526 Incept: 2007-07-11	Steph from the FedUp site it says: Obama Lawyer Adits Forgery But Disregards “Image” As Indication Of Obama’s Ineligibility ---------- Be the change you want to see in the world. ~Mahatma Gandhi 2012-04-14 17:30:32 Permalink
Vitchilo Posts: 3737 Incept: 2011-04-27	The army needs to arrest him immediately. ---------- I'm just following orders/doing my job : the excuse of cowards. I awake to see that no one is free, we’re all fugitives. 2012-04-14 17:41:37 Permalink
Agau Posts: 4456 Incept: 2010-06-04 Online	To be on any state ballot one needs to certify that they are a legal candidate and that certification is what needs to be questioned. NJ state law might not stipate the presentation of a BC but not being able to supply one should be construed by a judge who is not a pussy that the certificate is void and and the candidacy is void. The runner up would the get the NJ electoral votes meaning McCain 2012-04-14 17:43:04 From PDA Permalink
Raftermanfmj Posts: 2755 Incept: 2010-09-06 USA	Man, the CIA is getting sloppy! You'd think they'd be able to make a better forgery...or perhaps they are so far along in their plans they no longer bother trying. Tin? Absolutely. For now. :P ---------- I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not approve, and what they approve I do not know. - Epicurus Oderint dum metuant - Caligula & Police State USA 2012-04-14 17:49:32 Permalink
Pika-steph Posts: 54371 Incept: 2007-09-11 Live Free Or Die; US Army Est. 1775	Quote: I just think the better explanation for the Judge's "answer" is that he is searching for any reason at all to get this hot potato off his docket ASAP. Actually, I see the judge as being pretty helpful to the plaintiff. He repeated himself a number of times in saying that the WH BC was a problem - but - that the document itself is not at issue before him because it was not required in NJ. He was pretty much leading the plaintiffs to where they needed to go. He also was VERY helpful when it came to waiving the document expert's testimony and stipulating that the BC could not be used as any sort of verification whatsoever for Obama's eligibility for the ballot. He went so far as asking Ms. Hill point blank: Do you stipulate?! Anyone with half a brain in their head or ANY experience in trial law would know that you don't stipulate to something like that unless you REALLY, REALLY don't want that BC to be the subject of scrutiny. If the BC was legit there is no ****ing way as an attorney I would stipulate to that. NFW. But she did. By stipulation of a document's inadmissibility, you are therefore basically admitting there's a problem with it from an evidentiary perspective. I'm pretty sure this is now going to come back to haunt the administration in other jurisdiction(s). ---------- Stop the Looting; Start Prosecuting - http://www.FedUpUSA.org/ "The only regulation that really works is failure."--Rick Santelli 2012-04-14 17:52:27 Permalink
Widgeon Posts: 13481 Incept: 2007-08-30 Region formerly known as the United States	Quote: NJ state law might not stipate the presentation of a BC but not being able to supply one should be construed by a judge who is not a pussy that the certificate is void and and the candidacy is void. Yes. Any Judge worth spit would make that ruling. 2012-04-14 17:53:38 Permalink
Pika-steph Posts: 54371 Incept: 2007-09-11 Live Free Or Die; US Army Est. 1775	And THAT would be legislating from the bench. ---------- Stop the Looting; Start Prosecuting - http://www.FedUpUSA.org/ "The only regulation that really works is failure."--Rick Santelli 2012-04-14 17:59:42 Permalink
Vitchilo Posts: 3737 Incept: 2011-04-27	Pika-steph : since the corrupt scumbag in DC won't do their job, maybe it's time for judges to do it. ---------- I'm just following orders/doing my job : the excuse of cowards. I awake to see that no one is free, we’re all fugitives.