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

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
There is a difference between "natural born" as a Constitutional requirement for POTUS and what you call naturally born.

There is? Care to show us in the constitution, an amendment or the SC stating that, or is that just something you claim is true?

I remember watching a video of the President saying a copy of his birth certificate was now up on the whitehouse.gov website.

A COPY, so the pdf is NOT the birth certificate - why is that so hard for you to understand?

Who is the liar?

The OP, and those that claim Obama's birth certificates are not valid.

Originally posted by babybunnies
"it's a forgery and therefore can't be used as evidence for his non citizenship"

Except that claim is just a birther lie, it was never made....

Someone opines; "Watch, nothing will happen." And he would be right. Because the story is baseless. There is nothing written even in the Tea Bagger News that claims any lawyer "admitted" that the document was a forgery. First of all, had she admitted such a thing, it would make her culpable as a party to the forgery. She would lose her license to practice law. She would be asked, I am sure, by both NJ State Attorneys and the Federal Justice Dept. how she came to have knowledge of the forgery and who the forgers were. Instead what happened is that by using the law, the Judge himself said Obama could not be taken off the ballot, because as president he was on it basically whether he liked it or not. In other words, even Obama could not take himself off the ballot. it has nothing to do with "Popularity." You birthers just will never quit. And Ron Paul 2012? Really? Is this how he will get elected? His campaigners spreading rumors and lies and making up stories based on the trial room tirades of Birther Lawyers who are "outraged" at this collapse of the Constitution!? I call BS. Lawyers comments aren't inherent truths. It's just palaver from a bunch of people who just lost their case. If I am wrong, then something big will happen. There will be arrests and trials and breaking news stories. But something tells me this is just another Birther tempest in a Tea Bag.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by LifeInDeath

 

That is not the only case, others contradict.......

Everything in your quote (and I'd like to know what you are quoting from, you never cited it), are cases that were decided prior to Wong Kim Ark (except for Wong Kim Ark itself), Wong Kim Ark superseded these cases when it was decided in 1898. Since that time the rulings in Wong Kim Ark have never been reexamined by the Supreme Court and have been upheld as dogma by all lower courts. There is no contradiction to Wong Kim Ark and will not be unless and until a new case comes up that the Supreme Court decides to hear and rules upon either overturning this ruling or altering some of its substance.

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, in 1875...

Again, you're citing a case the predates Wong Kim Ark. Also, Minor v. Happersett was a case about womens' voting rights which held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote even if they are accorded citizenship based upon the situation of their birth. It is not a case that set about to determine if those born to foreign nationals who happened to be within the U.S. were or were not citizens, so using it in this context I think only serves to cloud the issue.

'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law' as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Wait, you are citing a blog article written by the very lawyer so so poorly handled this same New Jersey case we are discussing here as a source for your understanding of these legal issues? After the performance I saw in these videos, I hardly think this guy is one of the great legal minds of our time. Honestly, he came off as kind of a moron, disorganized and ill prepared for the case. I'm not impressed at all by this.

There are two United States Supreme Court decisions that show that the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not found in the Fourteenth Amendment or in any other part of the Constitution, but rather in the common law. The Supreme Court decided these cases after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. In the first case, the Court decided whether the person was a "natural-born citizen" and in the second one whether the person was a "citizen of the United States."

Which two cases?

reply to post by LifeInDeath


You are wrong....the Supreme court did not change the definition of Natural Born in that case, they said you have to refer to the constitution and the original meaning of the founding fathers...

Rewriting history does not make it true.

In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since[.]" Read more: www.americanthinker.com...

Supreme court cases referring to Natural Born citizen have been "mangled" and re written by Justia with help from Progressives around 2008.

There has been a deliberate, targeted effort to minimize if not erase the legal importance of Minor v. Happersett in defining the term "Natural Born Citizen." Justia and PRO champion freedom of information yet at the same time hypocritically redacted the law to suit a political goal. Justia and Tim Stanley butchered these cases and, when caught, removed Wayback Machine's access to Justia's entire Supreme Court server. The only thing hidden now is the evidence of Justia's deliberate scrubbing, as the cases are available in the public domain. Read more: www.americanthinker.com...

After being caught, they put out this disclaimer.

Tim Stanley has not returned messages asking for comment on this story at time of publication. Sometime last week, Justia added a disclaimer at the bottom of its SCOTUS case texts: Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources. The disclaimer speaks volumes about the credibility and accuracy of Justia.com. Read more: www.americanthinker.com...

In accordance with his suggestions, it was enacted by the [169 U.S. 649, 674] statute of February 10, 1855, c. 71, that 'persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.' 10 Stat. 604; Rev. St. 1993.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Turning to the treaty between the United States and China, concluded July 28, 1868, the ratifications of which were exchanged November 23, 1869, and the proclamation made February 5, 8 70, we find that by its sixth article it was provided: 'Citizens of the United States visiting or residing in China shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, or exemptions in respect of travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. And, reciprocally Chinese subjects residing in the United States, shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, and exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. But nothing herein contained shall be held to confer naturalization on the citizens of the United States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the United States.'

By the convention of March 17, 1894, it was agreed 'that Chinese laborers or Chinese of any other class, either permanently [169 U.S. 649, 731] or temporarily residing within the United States, shall have for the protection of their persons and property all rights that are given by the laws of the United States to citizens of the most favored nation, excepting the right to become naturalized citizens.'

NATURALIZED....NOT Natural Born.


In 2004 a bill was presented to change the definition of "natural born citizen" to open up the office of President and it was shot down.....the meaning of Natural Born has never been changed by the Supreme Court, from what the founding fathers intended.....even the INS recognizes 3 forms of citizen and only natural born is able to be president.

No one with a parent owing allegiance to another country ie: Britian, can be president.

People were lied to and a crime was committed and apparently nothing is to be done about it...that's where we stand.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

I notice that the original poster didn't even have the cojones to link to the original article where this was published (beyond Crosby's screed site, that is).

That original article has been updated to point out that Crosby lied. Find it here: ORYR: updated article: Dan Crosby is a liar..

”That original article has been updated to point out that Crosby lied. Find it here: ORYR: updated article: Dan Crosby is a liar.”

Your statement is a LIE. What ORYR posted next to the original Dan Crosby article is this:

"UPDATE: After re-watching the 3+ hour hearing there is no admission that the birth certificate is a forgery by Obama’s paid lackey. Where Dan Crosby heard that who knows. You will have to follow the link and ask him.

Aside from this ONE sentence, 'Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill. Admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery', the REST of the opinion piece is SPOT-ON."

obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com.au...

Originally posted by bknapple32

You do realize this thread is a proven hoax right???

The entire Tea Party Tribune article is NOT a hoax.

The OP used the title of the article in the Tea Party Tribune as the title of this thread:

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

The OP's misfortune.

It turns out the title is inaccurate, which is why this thread was dumped in the Hoax bin.

This Dan Crosby opinion piece was featured in at least seven different sites, before enough people sat thru the 3+ hours of the video recording of the hearing to realize the title is wrong.

www.teapartytribune.com...

But the article is still worth reading. It seems in New Jersey a candidate does not need to present a BC or other forms of ID to get on the ballot.

I've noticed that when I visit Anti-Obama sites, they seem to be booby-trapped with viruses & tracking cookies. It can also be a challenge to copy some of the articles -- as if blocked -- computer freezes. Interesting.

Interesting how this story broke april 12 and one day later (friday the 13) the 12 secret service men were caught with prostitutes. Convenient distraction.

Originally posted by Lord Jules
Interesting how this story broke april 12 and one day later (friday the 13) the 12 secret service men were caught with prostitutes. Convenient distraction.

What qualifies a story breaking, when the story is a lie? No need for a distraction when theres nothing to distract people about. Do some research, like reading a single post besides the op on this thread

Havent read the thread. Just passing through. Isnt it a crime in the USA. To present a forged document? It is here in the UK.

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
Havent read the thread. Just passing through. Isnt it a crime in the USA. To present a forged document? It is here in the UK.

Are people purposely doing this now? lol

So you havent read the thread, but know its in the hoax forum, yet you still treat it seriously???

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by LifeInDeath

 

You are wrong....the Supreme court did not change the definition of Natural Born in that case, they said you have to refer to the constitution and the original meaning of the founding fathers...

Rewriting history does not make it true.

edit on 15-4-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

You are right in so far as the case does not change the definition, that wasn't what I meant to say, though I can see by my posts why you thought I did. But Wong Kim Ark does, among other things, seek to clarify what the term "natural-born" means and cites case law going as far back to 1608 in England to help secure this definition:

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.

This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or or [169 U.S. 649, 656] explanations of it, was clearly. though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as 'Calvin's Case,' or the 'Case of the Postnati,' decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.

'Natural- born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.' 'Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.' The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: '(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [169 U.S. 649, 658] person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.' '(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.'

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

In the early case of The Charming Betsy (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying: 'Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can devest himself absolutely of [169 U.S. 649, 659] that character, otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law, is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.' 2 Cranch, 64, 119.

In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.'

'The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.' [169 U.S. 649, 666]

I'd go on with more examples, but I'm running out of characters. People need to read the case in full.

Apparently everyone on ATS received their degree in constitutional law... Dont some of you think that there are people more qualified than you and I who have looked into this, and yet nothing... Wonder why??

Originally posted by timetothink

In accordance with his suggestions, it was enacted by the [169 U.S. 649, 674] statute of February 10, 1855, c. 71, that 'persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.' 10 Stat. 604; Rev. St. 1993.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Turning to the treaty between the United States and China, concluded July 28, 1868, the ratifications of which were exchanged November 23, 1869, and the proclamation made February 5, 8 70, we find that by its sixth article it was provided: 'Citizens of the United States visiting or residing in China shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, or exemptions in respect of travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. And, reciprocally Chinese subjects residing in the United States, shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, and exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. But nothing herein contained shall be held to confer naturalization on the citizens of the United States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the United States.'

By the convention of March 17, 1894, it was agreed 'that Chinese laborers or Chinese of any other class, either permanently [169 U.S. 649, 731] or temporarily residing within the United States, shall have for the protection of their persons and property all rights that are given by the laws of the United States to citizens of the most favored nation, excepting the right to become naturalized citizens.'

NATURALIZED....NOT Natural Born.


In 2004 a bill was presented to change the definition of "natural born citizen" to open up the office of President and it was shot down.....the meaning of Natural Born has never been changed by the Supreme Court, from what the founding fathers intended.....even the INS recognizes 3 forms of citizen and only natural born is able to be president.

No one with a parent owing allegiance to another country ie: Britian, can be president.

People were lied to and a crime was committed and apparently nothing is to be done about it...that's where we stand.

edit on 15-4-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

You do realize you are quoting from the DISSENTING opinion in Wong Kim Ark, one that only two of the justices who ruled on the case signed. These quotes are not a part of the ruling that was affirmed by the rest of the justices.

reply to post by Human_Alien


what the hell..

i cant believe this B$..

New Jersey is under the same rules for a Presidential Candidate..

it does not need be in their Laws..

for it is in the Constitution itself..

now because someone unidentified placed the fraudulent picture on the OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE website the

charges of fraud fall on them? ITS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION and was done so under HIS orders..

seriously.. my GOD..

I can't be the only one completely outraged by this..

disgusting flagrant abuse of power & slimy tip toeing around the fact it is a lie and he is/was ineligible..

TIME TO STORM THE GATES AMERICA & TAKE BACK TRUTH JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY.


ps I dont want to here any B$ racial flack.. my children are of mix race & I voted for "Change We can believe in"

yes we can ... became no we cant..

reply to post by bknapple32


Apparently you do not live by your signature's quote..

"If you cant explain it simply you dont understand it well enough."- Albert Einstein

its fraud.

simple enough..

he is ineligible..

simple enough..

the documents signed to put him on the ballot were criminal acts..

simple enough..

I agree that Obama is not eligible to be president according to the natural born laws, because his father is from Africa and not a citizen.

The birth certificate was shown, and this is fine he was born of an American mother on american soil, but this does not make him natural born.

They have changed the definition of natural born in Obamas case, stating that the spirit of the law is being upheld because after the age of 22 when Obama did not denounce his American citizenship then his Kenyan citizenship automatically revoked. (until the age of 22 however he did hold dual citizenship by right of birth)

They say the spirit of the laws concerning natural born are being upheld because the fear when creating the laws of natural born was having a standing president owing allegiance to another country, and since Obama does not any longer have a Kenyan citizenship he owes no allegiance...


In my opinion, they want Obama in office for a reason. We are seeing that reason, and he will stay in office so long as he is useful. He, being black, can do things they cannot..

Obama provides ample media distraction to the true issues, which are peoples constitutional rights, keep people focused upon race, and make disagreeing with Obama a racist issue, and no one pays as much attention to all the rights they loose.

White people when their rights are taken will revolt, no matter who takes their rights.. this is why you see the terrorist list to include your basic 'redneck', your Ron Paul supporters etc.

But if a black president takes peoples rights away, and tells people it is for their own good and safety, the black people are more likely not to question it as much, and more likely to comply.

This way, they at least have some measure of control over a good percentage of the population, make white people out to be scarey haters now, take the rights away, tell blacks the scarey evil white people need to be controlled because they are now fighting the government, and blacks will say 'no problem' and sit back and not fight.

This is my analysis and my opinion only. It is not a racist one either, it is careful observation and analysis of what is happening today.

Nothing will happen. The people with the power will sweep it under the rug. You and I can do nothing actually.......