This is amazing. The embedded video has the highlight of the hearing: when the Obama lawyer *conceded* (the judge's word, not hers, nor mine) that she was there to offer *no* evidence of Obama's qualifications. She brazenly said that a Presidential candidate doesn't have to offer a thing! And the judge accepted that!
"We don't have any birth certificate. We don't need a birth certificate! WE DON'T NEED TO SHOW YOU ANY STINKIN' BIRTH CERTIFICATE!"
One small favor: now an Obama team lawyer has said in open court that the PDF file, that they are pleased to call "his birth certificate," has no evidentiary value and is not worth submitting to any official in charge of elections.
This case is ripe for appeal, and is going for an appeal.
NJ ALJ says "Obama born in Hawaii" with no evidence introduced. Fair or foul?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/04/11 11:53:55
|
|
|||||
|
46 votes
|
|
26% | |||
|
110 votes
|
|
63% | |||
|
19 votes
|
|
11% | |||
In the latest Obama eligibility challenge, an Administrative Law
Judge cleared Obama for the New Jersey Democratic Primary today. The two
men who objected to Obama’s nominating petition vowed to appeal.
Obama eligibility issues
Nick Purpura of Wall Township, NJ, and Ted Moran of Toms River, NJ,
filed their objection Thursday with the New Jersey Board of Elections.
Lawyer Mario Apuzzo of Jamesberg, NJ, delivered the brief and spoke
directly to Robert Giles, Director of Elections. Apuzzo argued Purpura
and Moran’s case today (Tuesday, April 10) at the Office of
Administrative Law in Mercerville. The Elections Division notified the
Obama campaign at once, and they sent their own lawyer, Alexandra Hill,
to appear. Administrative Law Judge (and Associate Director of the OAL)
Jeff Masin presided.
Purpura and Moran objected to Obama appearing on the June 5 Democratic Primary ballot on two grounds:
- No one knows exactly who Barack H. Obama is, because he has had
three different names in life. Furthermore, he has never furnished a
true copy of his birth certificate to the Secretary of State. So no one
can be sure that Obama was born in the United States. - Obama’s father was a British colonial subject. He not only was not a
naturalized citizen on the alleged date of Obama’s birth, but indeed
never sought naturalization. Therefore Obama could never be a
natural-born citizen no matter where he was born.
Ms. Hill offered no evidence, but spent her time objecting to the
entire case, to every witness whom Apuzzo called, and every document he
tried to introduce. In every specific case, she said that the documents
were neither originals nor certified copies. More generally, she said
repeatedly that New Jersey law did not obligate Obama in any way to
prove that he was eligible to the office of President. The only grounds
for challenging a nominating petition, said Hill, were whether the
petitions were in the proper form, all who signed were registered
voters, no voter signed more than one petition, whether the campaign
gathered enough signatures, etc.
Apuzzo countered that the New Jersey Constitution and at least one case on point (Strother, 6 NJ @ 565), obliged the Secretary of State to find affirmatively whether a given candidate was qualified for the office he or she sought, or not.
A surprise admission
Mario Apuzzo walks toward the Office of Administrative Law with his two clients. Photo: CNAV.
About two-thirds of the way through the hearing, Hill admitted in open court something that no lawyer for the Obama campaign has ever admitted. Obama never furnished a true copy of his birth certificate to the New Jersey Secretary of State. Furthermore, the PDF file that the White House has served to the Internet since April 27, 2012, is not relevant to the case in any way.
Hill conceded this point after Apuzzo tried to call Brian Wilcox, an
expert document analyst. He was ready to show that no one could rely on
the PDF file as a substitute for a hard-copy long-form birth
certificate. But Judge Masin said at once that neither he nor Secretary
of State Kim Guadagno had ever seen a birth certificate, whether on
paper, as a PDF file, or on the Internet. He told Apuzzo that calling
Wilcox would be “premature.”
Then Masin turned to Hill and asked her directly:
Is it your legal position that the document on the Internet is irrelevant to this case?
Hill replied, “Yes.” Masin then asked:
And indeed you concede that Mr. Obama has not produced an alleged birth certificate to the Secretary of State.
Hill at first said, “It has been released nationally,” but then
admitted that she did not know personally that Obama had given any such
document to the Secretary of State, nor did she intend giving such a
document to the court today. But she also argued, after Judge Masin
asked her repeatedly, that Obama need not produce any evidence at all.
Apuzzo told CNAV during a recess in the hearing that this
was the most stunning thing that any lawyer for Obama had ever admitted,
in an Obama eligibility case or in any other case. When the hearing
finally adjourned at 12:30 p.m., Apuzzo was confident of prevailing on
this point. He observed that Hill, after objecting to everything that
Apuzzo tried to introduce into evidence, offered no evidence on her own behalf and even admitted that the infamous PDF document was legally worthless.
A shocking turnabout
The Hon. Jeff Masin presides at the latest Obama eligibility hearing. Photo: CNAV
But the judge shocked Apuzzo when, at about 7:30 p.m., he called
Apuzzo to tell him that the Obama campaign had prevailed on both points.
Said the judge, according to Apuzzo:
As far as I’m concerned, Obama was born in Hawaii.
Apuzzo could not explain how Judge Masin could rule that way, after
observing in open court that neither Obama nor his surrogates had shown
that he was born in Hawaii.
If nothing else this controversy has exposed a flaw and inconsistency in our election system that should have been addressed long ago.
If you can clear up this mystery once and for all, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, would be very interested in speaking to you.
And again, you're ducking the actual subject here. You accuse the President of being ineligible to be President. Prove it.
http://www.azcentral.com/news...
http://www.azcentral.com/news...
There are no mentions in the press of him showing proof to anyone until he was a month away from presidential election then the document he showed was insufficient for even his home state.
The President's eligibility was also certified by the United States Senate on January 6, 2009 when the Electoral Votes of the 2008 election were officially counted and certified. Congress has a duty to discard any electoral votes cast for ineligible candidates. Since they accepted the electoral votes cast for President Obama, they have also confirmed his eligibility.
In addition, the House of Representatives passed a resolution honoring the 50th Anniversary of Hawaii's admission to the United States which specifically stated that the President was born in Hawaii.
Your turn. Prove that the President was not born in Honolulu.
Is it me or does that not seem ironic.
"For the purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack
Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny, he became a
citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen. "
"For the purposes of this analysis", translates to hypothetically. The judge did not state in his official statement on the case that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii.
The Obamaa lawyer states that Mickey Mouse can legally be on the ballot. LOL
That is not what Ms. Hill said. She said that the Internet image of the document cannot be used as evidence, and she’s absolutely right about that on the face of it. Internet images are not actual documents, no matter how good they are, no matter how genuine the document itself is. Only the document itself is evidence.
Obama had already proven his eligibility four years previously, with prima facie evidence. Do you know what that term means? Look it up.
That would mean that he would have to provide the document or the judge would have to rule against him.
Luckily for him Mickey Mouse is a viable candidate in that state as well and never produced a birth certificate either.
Yes, there is. The document proved it four years ago. Once established as prima facie evidence, the burden of proof is absolutely on anyone saying otherwise. He only had to show it once. He doesn’t have to show it separately to all fifty states and the District of Columbia, let alone to all 3,090 counties (or equivalent units), etc.
Tell me, and be honest: Did you (not would you) demand just as much proof of eligibility, with at least equal vehemence, from each and every one of Obama’s 43 predecessors, at least all of the ones during your voting-age lifetime?
Yes, or no? If no, why not?
He is really the only one in my lifetime other thanObama that there has been any question as to elligibility.
Carter: Son of a peanut farmer in Georgia
Reagan: Everyone knew his past from his acting career
Bush Sr: Already VP and grew up in Texas in a well known family.
Clinton: Did not know his background that well but noone else questioned it either
Obama: Unknown before his presidential campaign, son of a foreign father, lived most of his childhood outside the US. and he avoided the issue all through the primaries.
When I go to rent a car I bring whatever papers I need to secure the transaction. I expect at least that amount of preparedness from someone hoping to be president.
(And you think a junior Senator from Illinois has the "clout" to get a Republican Governor of Hawaii, not to mention senior state officials who are also Republicans, to lie for him?)
He was presidennt before any birth certificate was found.
Before that it was the certificate of live birth that my grandmother could get for me even if I was born on Pluto.
Oh, and it’s not true for a Certification of Live Birth, either.
Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or by one of the parents.
His grandmother worked in the SS administrationoffice and was a legal represetative and relative also his mother could have registered him 4 days later after she got back from Kenya.
The date is 4 days after his birth.
Here’s the actual text of §338-5 from capital.hawaii.gov, with the key text that your version dishonestly omits without ellipsis nor other indication underlined:
Now why does your side feel the need to deceive like that, if the truth were really on your side? Do you not see how those four deliberately omitted words (and one comma) make all the difference here?
A parent can be the certifying authority only in the complete and total absence at any and all stages of the birth process, of an authorized medical attendant (doctor, midwife, etc.)!
Obama’s birth was attended, according to both birth certificates shown.
Obama’s number is not a genuine registration number created in 1961 but was issued when the short-form document was generated during the 2008 presidential campaign.
You call 5 months long when he had already been campaigning in the primaries since Januuary?
The Hawaii State Law allowed for some time (days) to pass between a birth and the official recording of it. Preliminary birth certificates, filled out by a clerk and signed by the parent(s) and physician or other attendant, were placed in the registrar’s In Box, often face up.
What happens when you stack multiple documents face-up in a box like that? They wind up in reverse order!
They were stamped in the order processed, not the order of birth!
You might want to read my Reply to that post. It shows the real text of that law (from the actual official Hawaii State Capital website), including the four-word key phrase that the version Barry posted (probably copied-and-pasted from some maliciously dishonest and willfully, deliberately deceptive Birther source) omitted without ellipisis nor other indication of omission of any kind whatsoever (only deliberately dishonest people do that) that completely negates his stated interpretation of that law.
The point is that until a black candidate had a chance to win the Presidency, people took candidates at their word. Carter said he was born in Georgia. Reagan said he was born in Illinois. Ford said he was born in Michigan. That's all anyone needed to hear. But they were white. This entire birther movement is based not in the least on any legitimate question of where the President was born but is seated in the obsession that because he is black he isn't "worthy" of being President, and in the Right Wing mindset "worthy" becomes "eligible" without any prodding.
They were born to American citizens living in the United States at the time of thier birth so no reason to suspect they were not citizens.
Even if they were because BOTH parents were citizens they too are natural born citizens. It is only if one parent (primarily the father) is not a citizen that it is under question whether or not they can be a natural born citizen even if born in America.
Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."[39]
According to an April 2000 report by the CRS, most constitutional scholars interpret the natural born citizen clause as to include citizens born outside the United States to ...
They were born to American citizens living in the United States at the time of thier birth so no reason to suspect they were not citizens.
Even if they were because BOTH parents were citizens they too are natural born citizens. It is only if one parent (primarily the father) is not a citizen that it is under question whether or not they can be a natural born citizen even if born in America.
Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."[39]
According to an April 2000 report by the CRS, most constitutional scholars interpret the natural born citizen clause as to include citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President
The main reason is Domimionist / Reconstructionist / Third Waver / NARasite “sour grapes” over the Manifest Will of God being thwarted in Hs Anointed Sarah Palin being defeated, when they were so sure that this time God was bringing His chosen one to the White House to bring America “back” to its “Christian” (their kind of Christian) roots, as intended by their fantasy revisionist versions of the Founding Fathers.
Why do you think they call Obama “the Antichrist” (who else could thwart the Manifest Will of Almighty God!?), and also sarcastically call him the liberal “Anointed One”?
Sarah Palin really was anointed by an extremist minister (who initiated literal witch hunts in Uganda that resulted in several women being executed) to lead America “back to” (their version of) God!