Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery but disregards s Ineligibility Damage Control

Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery but disregards s Ineligibility Damage Control


Quote:
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
Editor: Penbrook Johannson

Thursday, April 12, 2012

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”.

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/2012/04/11/nj-ballot-access-challenge-hearing-update/

 

also found this.....http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm


Born in kenya..according to author

 

If Obama's lawyer admits that his birth certificate is a forgery then how does Obama have any constitutional right to run for reelection? What we have (if the post is correct) is an admission by Obama that the Birthers have been right all along.
Other than sheer denial of facts, how will the apologists cope with this admission?

 

We have an unknown author, Dan Crosby, that is not a recognized journalist that misrepresents the facts in his opinion piece. In realty the attorney Alexandra Hill, in representing Obama, conceded that an internet copy of the birth certificate issued to President Obama can not be used as evidence in a court of law which, in reality, renders the plantiffs case invalid as the plaintiffs allegations are based upon a copy from the internet and are not based upon a review of the actual birth certificate that was provided to Obama which the State of Hawaii Dept of Health has confirmed as being authentic.

More birther dribble based upon lies and distortions. These people really need to grow up and get a brain.

 

OMG, this birther crap is so funny. How embarrassed most Americans must feel to have this never ending ridiculous speculation by right wing finger dragging idiots.
The hate by these people is quite awe inspiring....really.

 

That is not what Obama's lawyer stated and the OpEd piece is BS birther crap. The attorney simply stated that a copy from the internet. which is what the plaintiffs are stating is a forgery, cannot be used in court as evidence. It actually discredits the plaintiffs case completely because they cannot present any documentation to support a claim the Obama's birth certificate is a forgery as they've never seen it.

Of course we know that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen as this has been documented by the Hawaii Dept of Health on their official website in the past. There has never been any evidence to the contrary.

 

Which begs the question:

Why do Birthers feel the necessity to misrepresent- and often outright lie- about Birther issues?

Was the original author just completely delusional and unable to comprehend the truth, or was he/she outright lying to further the Birther agenda?

 

Born in Hawaii- according to the State of Hawaii

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf

 

The obama administration said, that when this cirtificate was posted that in fact it was a origonal copy of his birth cirtificate, now months later it's found out to be a down right LIE!

He is hideing something, Some see it while others....walk around aimlessly lost.


BTW why is this in the conspiracy section, this is current events....in court right now!

 

Yet his mother, and his grand mother, and others claim he was born in kenya, and mysteriously die and go missing....Ironic huh?

 

What is important here is what is admitted during the hearing, not the outcome of the hearing itself. The first article is by Dan Crosby of the Daily Pen and reproduced over at The Obama Hustle.

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”.

Much more with videos at

www.latenightinthemidlands.com/prof...in-court-birth-certificate-on-white-house-web






First it was the real document, now when exsposed in court the truth comes out it's a fake!! This is very important considering that these lie's are coming from our nations president.


i think that it should determine his eligability, as this is the evidence HE presented for eligability, now it's found to be fake....Oh well!

We dont need him getting away with these types of things, over and over...he is NOT above the law!

 

More news coverage...



http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012...ation-of-obamas-ineligibility-damage-control/

"Thursday, April 12, 2012

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".

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."

Click the link to read the rest.


To all those who slammed people for believing in this: Bet you feel pretty stupid now?
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012...ation-of-obamas-ineligibility-damage-control/ "Thursday, April 12, 2012 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". 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." Click the link to read the rest. To all those who slammed people for believing in this: Bet you feel pretty stupid now?

 

Is there a video of this attorney admitting the BC image is a forgery?

 

No... not even close.

This is just more bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from that idiot birther lawyer Apuzzo.

I listened to about 3 minutes of video.

The OP is a flat-out lie. The dead giveaway is the shocking lack of actual quotes by the lawyer even while they present 3 hours worth of video of the hearing.

So she never said anything like what the op contends that she said.

 

Just more birther disinformation. Can you provide the complete quote of her saying this?

I know you can't because she never says anything close to that.

Just more birther lies and desperation.

 

When will we see the lawyer admitting the BC is a fake? Or does this require special 3-D glasses only available to the intellectually elite?

 

Here is the only part you probably need to see:

[video=youtube;_grIjyq5y-w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_grIjyq5y-w[/video]

It's clear that this was another legal smackdown for the birthers.

Obama's lawyer's points:

1) The IMAGE of the document is not valid for authentication purposes so the birthers' attempts to declare the ACTUAL DOCUMENT a "forgery" based on a digital image from the internet.

2) She isn't presenting a BC because it's not relevant to the case.

2) Obama doesn't have to produce a birth certificate because it's not required legally and she isn't presenting the BC. The birthers have not produced verified contrary evidence.

The Judge: You can't argue that a document is forged if the document hasn't been presented to the NJ Secretary of State.

Note: The judge blocks the case and leaves the decision to the Secretary of State.


More birther lawyer incompetence folks. Nothing to see here.

 

Right...if you don't see a video of the court proceedings then it can't be true. Duh...many times cameras are not allowed in court and even you would have to admit that it would be very stupid on Obamas part to allow videos.

This is a far stretch by his attorney, a very far stretch and now all that need happen is for the information to go viral. He's popular, I'll give him that, but very few people like or trust a liar. We have to be able to trust our president, and this one lacks trust.

 

Yep right here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_grIjyq5y-w

 

i certainly don't like or trust you

did you even watch the video, what was it that you think was a stretch?


anybody that thinks ms hill (obama's lawyer) said that the birth certificate is a forgery, either didn't watch the video or is lying

 

If it DOES go to The Secretary of State and the information about Chelsea Clinton's life being in danger is true, then Hillary will be forced with a very difficult answer...does she agree that the document is a forgery and therefore makes him ineligible putting her daughter in danger or does she lie to save her daughter and put the country in further danger from the Marxist-Expansionist?

 

chelsea clinton, what are you talking about?