Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery but disregards “image” as Indication of Obama’s Ineligibility Dama

reply to post by AliceBlackman


The truth is that those in the upper echelons on the Birther movement know full well that they're selling lies (they're the liars after all), but they are selling these lies (and wasting thousands in tax dollars in the process) because their goal is simply a propaganda victory.

Unluckily for them the delusional right-wing asshat voting block is relatively small.

Star and Flag for not posting an unclear youtube video of out of focus planes.



Don't think this changes much. Earthlings are way to submissive and powerless against their own system.
Bunch of wussies.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious



So is this why he only produces internet copies, one still has to wonder, because they are not admissible in court,

You don't see that?

And it still begs the question why he doesn't produce an original, if he is willing to produce a internet copy, lay all this to rest and produce the original, McCain settled the issue with his birth certificate, until Obama does people will be suspicious, that doesn't make then liars., like other posters are suggesting, are insults really necessary?

This court hearing did clear up a few things for me, I now understand why it gets thrown out of court, Obama hasn't and doesn't have to produce one, apparently, and that doesn't bother anyone?


MY guess is there isn't an original copy, or he is holding it for the up coming election?

LOL Birthers.

I read a few pages of posts in this thread and wow, really just wow. It blows my mind how lost a lot of you are, you use in posts comments that should essentially pants you, yet you claim they work in favor of your delusions. I could care less if Obama lied and gets impeached for it, it doesn't make one bit of difference. The whole birther conspiracy is equal to watching puppies chase their tails.

Do any of you get why Obama's BC is irrelevant in this case or why yet again a birther will be laughed out of court?

Because New Jersey Law (mind you this lawsuit is to challenge that Obama was incorrectly placed on the New Jersey Ballot) does NOT require a Birth Certificate as proof of legitimacy for running for POTUS.

Further Ms. Hill admitted nothing claimed in the OP, she would be disbarred for that (hello?) what she said was (loosely) that the INTERNET image was not admissible nor proof of forgery. And it's not.

Plus in regards to my previous post, the internet copy cannot hold up in a court of law, so those touting it is authentic would not be able to use that as proof either way.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


First - HE didn't produce the internet copy, he gave the public the version the Hawaiian Government certified.

Second - Candidates are places on the ballot by parties, not the candidates themselves, so HE didn't do anything in this case.

Third - How can HE produce an original? Hmmm? The Hawaiin government is the one with the original and they don't release anything other than what he produced, and guess what, he didn't even HAVE to release that. He did it to shut up idiots... which is ridiculous as idiots don't shut up, no matter the proof... case in point this thread.

Fourth - Why should a candidate have to produce one? To the SOS of all 50 states? Hmmmm? Should McCain? Paul? Ross Perot? Why weren't you screaming about this in 2004? Or 2000?


There's no evidence at all for birther claims and dozens of examples (like this thread) of Birthers lying through their teeth. Why do you choose to believe serial liars?

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


He did it to shut up the idiots?

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Donald Trump et al.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Yup, Donald Trump specifically.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


You believe they are liars, but I still think he is hiding something.

Simple as that.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Hiding the fact that he leans towards fascism I could go for, but he happens to be a fascist that was born in the US and is Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

Plus in regards to my previous post, the internet copy cannot hold up in a court of law, so those touting it is authentic would not be able to use that as proof either way.

Do you agree neither side can use this as proof?

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I know you can't provide proof of any deceit, but I can show you multiple examples of birthers lying... it's not a "agree to disagree" thing, it's a, "your side repeatedly lies" thing.

This thread, is a lie. You can, if you wanted to be honest - not holding my breathe though - watch the entire video, and show us where the OPs claim, and the tea party/birther blog he took it from, is accurate.

But you won't.

Instead you won't, as is the birther way, check any evidence; instead you'll parrot birther lies and claim there's a reason to be suspicious... without providing that reason.... as it doesn't exist.

reply to post by Human_Alien


Presidents have been using the Constitution as toilet paper for decades, shouldn't be surprised by anything anymore. Truthers can cry bloody murder as long as they like, Obama was the one the elite selected and he will be president as long as they want him to be.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

Plus in regards to my previous post, the internet copy cannot hold up in a court of law, so those touting it is authentic would not be able to use that as proof either way.

Do you agree neither side can use this as proof?

I agree the one downloaded from the internet, neither can use as proof. Obama can use his real one in a court case however, if he needs to...birthers cannot, as they dont have it.

Originally posted by oghamxx
snip

No rights were denied, as Obama has proven to be naturally born, thus the legal POTUS.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


US what? The PDF?

Go check that last Tatitz lawsuit and see what the judge said about it being valid.

reply to post by Human_Alien
Just proves that "anyone" who has the power to do anything about it is involved.

Why should the system be any different with Obama then it was with Clinton, Clinton was impeached and still left with his finger on the button and now he is treated like it never happen.The statement she made that only his popularity should matter and not weather he is legel should tell you something about the research that has gone into the mindset of the people of this country by Obamas handlers.

It is what the people of the U.S. have become that should concern those of us that see what is happening, not the clown's the TPTB put in office.............................majority rules in a Republic.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Why would Obama's team use the PDF? He has the certified copy from Hawaii...

Well, Alexandra Hill admitted she did not personally have the "original" b/c but/because (1) we don't know how many of the paper b/cs with the impression seals were sent by Hawaii to Obama - I get the impression not many, certainly not enough to give one away (most States charge something like $5 or $10 per copy) every time some birther crawls out of the woodwork, and putting one in evidence in either the court or the election board means that it's not going to be returned to the Obama people. (2) Neither the court proceeding nor the election board required presenting a b/c. And, I might add, (3) the birther lawyer took the position that a genuine Hawaiian b/c didn't really matter because he's got this (legally absurd) idea that a "natural-born citizen" must also have a citizen father.

Here, for the umpteenth time, are the facts: The Hawaii Dept of Health has gone to the trouble of issuing Obama's long form b/c; it didn't have to do this because Hawaii law says that the short form churned out by computer is legally satisfactory evidence, but it looked up the original as a favor to the President. The authenticity of the Hawaiian b/c was attested by (1) the previous Governor of Hawaii (now a US Senator) - a Republican, (2) the Director of the Hawaii Dept of Health - also a Republican, (3) the director of the Hawaii office of vital records, and (4) the current Governor of Hawaii - who personally knew the Obama family back in 1961 and remembers when baby Barack was brought home from the hospital. We don't have this much evidence about the birth of Abraham Lincoln!

Next, in American law a "natural-born citizen" is someone born in the US, and there is no requirement that either or both parents also be US citizens. There are several court decisions, Attorney-General opinions, etc., to that effect. Additionally we have the precedents of the 21st President, Chester A. Arthur (born in Vermont to an American mother and British father) and the 1916 Republican nominee for President, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes (born in NY to two British parents). It does not matter that either or both parents have other nationality or that some foreign country may, through its own laws, make some claim on the person born in the US.