Normally, I have stayed away from commenting on the controversy surrounding President Obama’s eligibility or the legitimacy of his long form birth certificate posted on the White House website; however, because this is now a matter of court record and has been captured on court house video as well, I feel compelled to present the information as yet more evidence of the massive corruption in our country’s government. I also feel compelled to post this because the mainstream media has made it pretty clear it isn’t going to – because this happened 4 days ago and I have yet to see it even mentioned.
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 IneligibilityThe following is from Mario Apuzzo, Esq.’s own Blog:
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”.
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 [emphasis added]. 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/
Update on the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 10, 2012
Today, April 10, 2012, Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran had their Barack Obama primary ballot objection heard by Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey 08619. The case started about 9:30 a.m. and lasted to about 1:00 p.m. I represented the Objectors. Mr. Obama was represented by Alexandra Hill of the firm of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi of Newark, New Jersey.
We argued that Mr. Obama has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is a “natural born Citizen.” We argued that he has not presented any evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing who he is and that he was born in the United States. We 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.
Obama’s attorney made a motion to dismiss the Objection in its entirety. She argued that it was not relevant to being placed on the ballot whether Mr. Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” where he was born, and whether he was born to U.S. citizen parents. She said that no law in New Jersey obligated him to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot. We argued that Mr. Obama under the Constitution has to be a “natural born Citizen.” We argued that under New Jersey law (the state constitution, statutes, and case law), Mr. Obama must show 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. We argued that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot. Judge Masin denied Obama’s motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.
After calling to the witness stand Mr. Moran and Mr. Purpura, who gave testimony as to why they brought the ballot challenge, and introducing documents showing there is a question as to Mr. Obama’s identity, I called Brian Wilcox to testify as an internet image expert. Mr. Wilcox was going to testify on how the Obama April 27, 2011, long-form birth certificate has been altered and manipulated either by computer software or by a human or both, producing a forged documents, and that since the image is not reliable, we need to see the original paper version. Obama’s lawyer objected to my proffered testimony. I then offered that I would not need to have Mr. Wilcox testify, provided that Obama stipulated that the internet image of his birth certificate could not be used as evidence by either Judge Masin or the New Jersey Secretary of States and that he presented to the court or the Secretary of State no other evidence of his identity or place of birth. Judge Masin also asked Obama’s attorney whether she would so stipulate. She did so stipulate, agreeing that both the court and the Secretary of State cannot rely on the internet birth certificate as evidence of Obama’s place of birth and that Obama has produced no other evidence to the court regarding his place of birth. She also argued that Obama has no legal obligation to produce any such evidence to get on the primary ballot. Judge Masin then took the issue under advisement. Having produced absolutely no evidence of his eligibility for the Office of President, Judge Masin will decide whether as a matter of law Obama has a legal duty to produce such evidence before he may be placed on the New Jersey ballot in light of the pending objection filed against him. If he decides that he does, then the Objection will be successful. If he decides that Obama has no such legal obligation, the Objection would fail on the first issue.
The second issue that Judge Masin addressed was whether the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” includes the requirement that the child be born to two U.S. citizen parents. Judge Masin relied heavily upon the fact that no court in the nation has yet ruled that Mr. Obama had to have two U.S. citizen parents at the time of his birth. I explained that most cases regarding Mr. Obama have been ruled in his favor on procedural grounds rather than on the merits of the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” He relied heavily upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and its use of the English common law to define U.S. citizenship. We also discussed the Indiana Ankeny decision and the Georgia ballot access cases. I explained how Wong did not hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen,” but only a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment which does not define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” I explained that Wong distinguished between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen,” explaining how Justice Gray used Horace Binney’s distinction between both classes of citizens. I argued that it is error to rely upon Wong as though it held Wong to be a “natural born Citizen.”
I argued that the Founders and Framers did not adopt the English common law to define the term, but rather natural law and the law of nations which under Article III became part of the “Laws of the United States.” I explained that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” comes from natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Emer de Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations (1758), which definition was recognized as American “common-law” in Minor v. Happersett (1875). I also explained that Wong Kim Ark confirmed Minor’s definition (a child born in a country to citizen parents) and did not change it.
I explained that Congress through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 abrogated the English common law as the law to define U.S. citizenship and that through those acts it told us that a child born in the United States to alien parents was an alien and not a “citizen of the United States.” I went through the historical evidence, including but not limited to Emer de Vattel and St. George Tucker, which shows that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents and not as the English common law defined a “natural born subject.” I explained how Madison wrote to Washington that at the constitutional convention, the delegates did not adopt the English common law for the new republic. I explained that the English common law continued to have effect in the states, even being included in their constitutions and statutes, but not on the federal level where both the Constitution and Acts of Congress did not do the same as the states did. I explained that there is a constitutional distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen,” and that the two terms cannot be conflated and confounded as per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, who told us that each clause of the Constitution must be given its own meaning. Judge Masin also reserved decision on the question of whether a “natural born Citizen” must be born to two U.S. citizen parents.
Judge Masin will be contacting counsel today or tomorrow morning either by telephone or email as to his decision, stating “yes” or “no” on both issues. He will then provide his written decision to the Secretary of State no later than Wednesday, April 11, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel will be able to object to Judge Masin’s initial decision. The Secretary of State will make the final decision. After her decision, the parties can then appeal to the New Jersey Appellate Division and then to the New Jersey Supreme Court. After that, the parties can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 10, 2011 Update
April 9, 2012 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/