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

reply to post by bknapple32


Most of the tea party dont give a damn about this BC issue.

reply to post by timetothink


You mean, you cant force me to see it your way. Thats something different again.
You are wrong it your interpretation thats all. Natural, native, is samantics. My father is a natural born, native of America. Born here, His parents screwed in brooklyn one night, he was born 9 months later. Cant get more natural than that.

Originally posted by dtaonats
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

Throw him in jail for mass fraud and high treason against congress and the people!

Did you notice this is in the hoax bin?? or blindly skip that part

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by bknapple32

 

Most of the tea party dont give a damn about this BC issue.

Facts to back that up? Just not sure where you get that from...

Originally posted by modeselektor

It's quite interesting to watch. the judge is clearly biased.

Alexandra comments on the supposedly faked selective service registration. at about 20 minutes in.

It is brought up at around 14 minutes.

But it is a farce!

Alexandra basically says that the supposedly forged documents are irrelevant for the ballot case, she never admits that it is a fraud.

Thanks for this. This hearing was a farce. The judge was not going to ruin his life by honoring the documents or the testimony of the two objectors.

The judge rejected the documents because they were not certified original documents (even though one was from the Selective Service and the other from the White House site).

Obama's lawyer, Alexandra Hill, objected to hearing the testimony of the two objectors because there is NO legal precedence in the state of New Jersey --

that testimony from out-of-state people (Sheriff Arpaio has no jurisdiction in NJ) is relevant to the burden of proof that a presidential candidate is not eligible under Title 19.

So Apuzzo lost his case on technicalities.

This judge clearly did not want to be involved in this case.

reply to post by Bakatono

If you can prove to the court that your 'injury' was solely due to an overt act of deception by Obama for the purpose of his obtaining the office, go for it.

He usurped nothing until you prove it to the satisfaction of the court.

So, who IMO caused your injury? The state ballot commissioners, people who voted for him and the Chief justice. They cause your injury by all neglecting their right to have a POTUS who is eligible under the Constitution. They have the right to forgo that right the same as they can forgo their right to remain silent!

In the BC matter your 'statue of limitations' expired on the moment of his have been given the oath office.

There is a wild theory out there.

Do you think that there may be a reason for all the weak lawsuits and hype.
(I think there are hundreds ?)

Some people think Orly T. and others are Obama shills that are actually staging a charade to keep the real secrets covered up (whatever those may be !)

Some would say that genuine lawyers would know the pitfalls before even going to court.
Yet they keep filing and filing and filing. All weak appearing cases.
And losing and losing and losing.

We keep noticing how "dumb" each lawyer and case seems to look.

It may all be designed to make all the questions look dumb in the first place.

Each case that gets ruled in favor of Obama makes the the next ones harder and harder to prove.

Obama gets a default in his favor every time without ever showing his real cards.

Perfect plan actually.

reply to post by AuranVector


Man, this kind of bizarre post (backing up an equally insane post) is why I stay away from political thread on this board. Christ, it freaks me out that there are people in this country who are this poisoned with ignorance and hatred, and who otherwise are perfectly functional and can easily blend into society. Extremely unsettling.

Obama is our president and was the first presidential candidate in quite a while (since Bush I in 1988) to actually win by over 50% of the popular vote as well as the Electoral College. That means that more than half of the voters in this nation made the decision that he would be our president when they voted in 2008. Not one case of voter fraud was brought to conviction (not even in those states where the PTB would've loved to have found one), and the turn out was the greatest that we've ever seen in a presidential election.

The race haters and the hyper-competitive rightwingers will never accept that Obama won fair and square against a guy who was in way over his head at the national level in a campaign that simply lost its way again and again until it finally limped in 2nd place on November 4th of that year. But that's their problem, and it's not going to be the problem of the rest of us.

Their obsessiveness and psychological stutterings aren't going to make any difference on what happens in this election either. If Romney wins, then it'll have to be on the strength of his policy positions and his ability to convince a majority that he can do right by the majority of Americans that make up this society. So far, he's just not doing that, but who knows. Maybe he'll flip back over and suddenly find a position that resonates with more than 1% of the nation (and their trailer park step-n-fetchers, of course) and get some momentum together.

But trying to unearth this Birther corpse just makes the conservative "movement" seem ever more like a Bataan Death March. Who would ever want to join such a morose parade unless it was to find others that are as futilely hateful and desperate as themselves? There's no future in being driven by rage and hatred.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by jbmitch
Public office requires public review of documents that qualify you for that office.

Care to show exactly where that is stated, and if it was true you could show us all previous Presidents documents...

but you cannot, as it is just a silly birther claim!

" When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property."~Thomas Jefferson speaking to the Philidelphia Convention (first constitutional convention) June 17, 1787.

Now please do not say that his statement carries no weight. Jefferson was one of the fathers of our Republic and was well aware that government served the people and that for a government to be righteous and serve with virtue it required men and women of virtue.

What would be the purpose of stating in Article II that you have to be a natural born citizen only to omit the requirement of proof of being natural born. Our founders were not stupid by any means and wanted to insure that only natural born Americans could serve as POTUS in order to protect us from a coup initiated by having a foreigner sit in the office of highest service to the people.

Regardles of whether Obama was born in the US or not, he has committed so many questionable acts and quasi-illegal programs that his BC issue should be a moot matter in light of his other acts.

He started off by allowing voter intimidation charges to be dropped against TNBPP even though he says that he wants every vote to count. He is responsible for fast and furious since he is the CEO of the US and DoJ is under his management. His "Kenetic Military Action" in Libya was a violation of congressional powers as well as The Warpowers Act, it also violated numerous laws under US Code Chapter 50 which regulates the WPA. Technically IMHO he is guilty of fraternizing with the enemy since he has had several meetings with top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders while our military personnel are still engaged in combat with them. If I had done that while in the service I would be iN Leavenworth Penitentiary or dead by firing squad.

And just to set the record straight I despise the Bush's and Clinton, they were tyrants as well. I am not Democan or Republicrat, I am an American and the only political ideal I align myself with is that of the US Constitution and Bill Of Rights. Every POTUS we have had in the last 50 yrs has been a globalist and elitist with the exception of maybe 2 but Obama is blatantly going against everything we have stood, fought, and died for and he and his followers scream "racist" anytime anyone is against him.

Hell I'm no racist, I have many friends of all races, sexual orientation, and nationality. The reason that I don't like what Obama is doing is that he is trying to "Fundamentally Transform" a country that has been a beacon of hope for the world in the most part. We have accomplished so much in our mere 230+ years of existence because of the way our country is, because we have enjoyed the liberty and freedom to do as we wish and achieve our.dreams. What is so wrong with that?

Originally posted by xuenchen
There is a wild theory out there.

Do you think that there may be a reason for all the weak lawsuits and hype.
(I think there are hundreds ?)

The lawyers and their handler get big checks from rightwing PACs and other bundlers that are desperate to keep these kinds of headlines in front of "low information voters" for local and state races. This is how the GOP has been racking up tons of such political victories over the years. Local elections and state elections affect most government-business relationships (and regulations concerning them). This is were the real money is made off the government, since the feds dole the money to the state and local level managers for all projects. They don't want to win at the national level if they can have someone at the national level that will keep the locals fixated on that person as an existential threat. Keeps the attention off the stuff happening that that level and keeps the donations coming.

Its pretty ingenious and it works like nothing else to keep the donations and government money flowing to the right folks.

The article says that she said something, but offers no direct quotes of what she allegedly said. Nothing from the court transcript, just a description of what the article's author says she said. I'd like to see her actual words before I believe she said these things.

Also, there's at least one massive factual error in the article about requirements for Natural Born status. Both parents do not need to have been citizens. The U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark case outlines the entire history of Natural Born status law, going all the way back to the early 1600's English common law precedents on the matter. Anyone born on U.S. soil, whether or not his parents are American citizens or not is a natural born American citizen. There are only two exceptions to this rule: 1) if one of the parents is part of an invading foreign army, 2) if the parents are ambassadors or part of the diplomatic corps, because ambassadors are said to carry their native sovereignty with them wherever they go.

If this article is getting such a basic fact about constitutional law wrong, on a subject this site is supposed to be an expert on, then how can anyone believe anything else they are saying?

reply to post by bknapple32


They do not get involved with this issue do they ?

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

" When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property."~Thomas Jefferson speaking to the Philidelphia Convention (first constitutional convention) June 17, 1787.

Now please do not say that his statement carries no weight. Jefferson was one of the fathers of our Republic and was well aware that government served the people and that for a government to be righteous and serve with virtue it required men and women of virtue.

Jefferson knocked up his black slave girlfriend and then rejected his own kid from that mating.

Virtuous? Depends on what you call virtue.

You people are stranded in a fog and probably will always be stranded in that fog. I especially like the grandiose nature of the statement. "Please do not say that his statement carries no weight"



Priceless.

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by bknapple32

 

They do not get involved with this issue do they ?

Tea partiers dont get involved with birtherism???? Would you like me to provide you with at least 10 links saying the contrary

Ill give you one after 10 seconds of google
www.rightwingwatch.org...

.

reply to post by AuranVector

Thanks for this. This hearing was a farce. The judge was not going to ruin his life by honoring the documents or the testimony of the two objectors.

The hearing was indeed a farce: Arpuzzo simply does not understand the law. The judge bent over backward to present Arpuzzo's case for him, yet Arpuzzo did not understand and continued to try to introduce irrelevant testimony.

The judge rejected the documents because they were not certified original documents (even though one was from the Selective Service and the other from the White House site).

The judge did not reject the documents because they were "not certified original documents." The judge did not allow them as evidence because they were never formally presented to the New Jersey Department of State, and were therefore irrelevant. The basis of Arpuzzo's complaint is that the Obama campaign did not meet the standards of qualification needed to be placed on the New Jersey primary ballot. The State of New Jersey does not require a candidate's representatives to present certified copies of the candidate's birth certificate or Selective Service records.

Obama's lawyer, Alexandra Hill, objected to hearing the testimony of the two objectors because there is NO legal precedence in the state of New Jersey --

"Obama's lawyer" was not Obama's lawyer; I believe she was representing the New Jersey Obama campaign, which filed for his candidacy and was therefore the defendant. (Not the actual President!) The testimony of the two "experts" was not allowed because it had no bearing on the case. What part of "certified copies of a candidates birth certificate are not required by the New Jersey Constitution" do you not understand?

that testimony from out-of-state people (Sheriff Arpaio has no jurisdiction in NJ) is relevant to the burden of proof that a presidential candidate is not eligible under Title 19.

Oh well, that's Federalism for you.

So Apuzzo lost his case on technicalities.

No, he lost the case because, despite the judge desperately trying to coach him down the path of the law, Arpuzzo is a moron who did not understand the particularities of his case. He was so eager to parade his "experts" before the bench in the mistaken belief that he was actually suing the President, that he ignored precisely the issues that would have allowed this case to go to trial.

This judge clearly did not want to be involved in this case.

He did look rather put upon. Wouldn't you be if an idiot insisted on wasting your time like that? The judge actually laid out the basis of the case for Arpuzzo, and Arpuzzo ignored it! It was a very amusing courtroom comedy, however.

So long as this is in the [HOAX] bin, did anyone else here notice that lawyer's "Horse Tail" hairstyle, and the way she stroked it? Could she possibly be a Vrilfrau, do you think?

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
he has committed so many questionable acts and quasi-illegal programs that his BC issue should be a moot matter in light of his other acts.

Then the Obama haters and birthers should go after him for that, not the birth certificate nonsense.

By pushing their silly birth certificate conspiracy theory and losing every court case they bring they are just making themselves and their "cause" look very silly.

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
Also, there's at least one massive factual error in the article about requirements for Natural Born status. Both parents do not need to have been citizens. The U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark case outlines the entire history of Natural Born status law, going all the way back to the early 1600's English common law precedents on the matter. Anyone born on U.S. soil, whether or not his parents are American citizens or not is a natural born American citizen.

And that fact is just one of the reasons birthers will lose every silly court ase they bring - they refuse to accept those basic facts.

So why was this marked a hoax? Did she not say the things the article said she said?

Originally posted by 1825114
So why was this marked a hoax? Did she not say the things the article said she said?

Correct. Not once. Not even close

The only thing that will get a president out of office is if they cross the bankers.
Eligible/not eligible or not this guy isn't going anywhere until his string pullers want him out.