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

[mandym]

Thursday, April 12, 2012

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”.

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012...ation-of-obamas-ineligibility-damage-control/


*Note- video of the actual court hearing and arguments are in the link.

 

[Don]

Gah, my brain hurts....

 

[Winman]

The 5th video down is very interesting and well worth the watch. It shows in detail how Obama's long form birth certificate and selective service mailing are fake.

 

[freeatlast]

"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."

Hopefully Miss Hill will never set on any court bench as a judge or hold any political office.

 

[Scarlett O.]

"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."

Hopefully Miss Hill will never set on any court bench as a judge or hold any political office.

Well, the Tea Party article said that this is what she implied. What she actually said was that there was not a New Jersey law that required anyone wanting their name on a presidential ballot to show a proof of citizenship. And that's true.

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.”

 

[mandym]

Well, the Tea Party article said that this is what she implied. What she actually said was that there was not a New Jersey law that required anyone wanting their name on a presidential ballot to show a proof of citizenship. And that's true.

Which is irrelevant. The point of the op is that she admitted the true nature of the long form BC.

 

[LadyEagle]

He has no original long-form authentic BC showing he was born in Hawaii. He is ineligible to be president, that's why he has spent millions of dollars to cover this up.


Lots of info here:

http://www.commieblaster.com/ineligible/index.html

 

[Winman]

He has no original long-form authentic BC showing he was born in Hawaii. He is ineligible to be president, that's why he has spent millions of dollars to cover this up.


Lots of info here:

http://www.commieblaster.com/ineligible/index.html

Yes, why wouldn't he have submitted this information right away? There was a question about McCain's qualifications because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone (father was in the military stationed there at the time), but he submitted all necessary documents right away.

I had to show my birth certificate to play Little League Baseball when I was a kid!

It makes no sense. Simply present your birth certificate right away and end all controversy.

 

[InTheLight]

I really wish this nonsense would stop.

I challenge anyone on BB or anywhere else to show me where lawyer Alexandra Hill "admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery"

In case anyone is interested in the truth, here is what she said,

"Even if the petitioners had an authentic copy of Obama's birth certificate, there is no requirement under New Jersey law that a candidate for President publish, produce, or release an official birth certificate. The claim is not relevant to the presidential primary ballot."

Anyone can see/hear this at the 12:08 mark of the first video at the link provided.

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012...ation-of-obamas-ineligibility-damage-control/

She then goes on to say that the consent of the candidate is not required to put them on the ballot. The judge asks for clarification, and she states that as long as someone produces a petition with at least 1,000 signatures on it endorsing a candidate for President, that person's name would be put on the ballot. There is no requirement to produce a birth certificate under New Jersey law.

The case boils down to this:
1. Plaintiff alleges that Obama's birth certificate is not authentic, therefore Obama should not be allowed to be on the upcoming New Jersey Democratic primary ballot.

2. Defense counters that a birth certificate is not required to be on the ballot, whether authentic or fake.

At no time did she say that Obama's birth certificate is a fake.

 

[InTheLight]

Which is irrelevant. The point of the op is that she admitted the true nature of the long form BC.

No she didn't.

 

[Winman]

I really wish this nonsense would stop.

I challenge anyone on BB or anywhere else to show me where lawyer Alexandra Hill "admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery"

In case anyone is interested in the truth, here is what she said,

"Even if the petitioners had an authentic copy of Obama's birth certificate, there is no requirement under New Jersey law that a candidate for President publish, produce, or release an official birth certificate. The claim is not relevant to the presidential primary ballot."

Anyone can see/hear this at the 12:08 mark of the first video at the link provided.

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012...ation-of-obamas-ineligibility-damage-control/

She then goes on to say that the consent of the candidate is not required to put them on the ballot. The judge asks for clarification, and she states that as long as someone produces a petition with at least 1,000 signatures on it endorsing a candidate for President, that person's name would be put on the ballot. There is no requirement to produce a birth certificate under New Jersey law.

The case boils down to this:
1. Plaintiff alleges that Obama's birth certificate is not authentic, therefore Obama should not be allowed to be on the upcoming New Jersey Democratic primary ballot.

2. Defense counters that a birth certificate is not required to be on the ballot, whether authentic or fake.

At no time did she say that Obama's birth certificate is a fake.

I get you, a birth certificate is not required in New Jersey.

Nevertheless, her statement about the birth certificate implies at least that she does not know if it is authentic or not. Actually, I think she implies that she KNOWS it is not authentic.

Why wouldn't she simply have said that the plaintiffs already have an authentic birth certificate? Skilled attorneys rarely make this sort of mistake with words. For an attorney to say "if" is a big deal, attorneys are super careful about the words they choose to use.

For instance, remember Bill Clinton saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"? Well, there are probably hundreds of Ms. Lewinsky's running around, but nobody asked Clinton which specific Ms. Lewinsky he was speaking about. Very clever.

Words are important, especially in law. Skilled attorneys do not make mistakes like this.

 

[Winman]

Boy, times have changed. Back in the 70's and the Watergate scandal, the media was all over Richard Nixon asking for all sorts of documents and tapes. They attacked the White House head on.

But with Obama he gets a free pass. None of the major news organizations are investigating this possible fraud against the people of the United States.

It is very possible this attorney knows and was even involved in this alleged fraud. By saying "if" she can claim that she never denied she had knowledge the document was fake. Very clever.

She would have been smarter to simply not mention the birth certificate and simply argue that a birth certificate is not necessary in New Jersey.

I seriously doubt when she said "if", it was a mistake. More like CYA.

 

[InTheLight]

Nevertheless, her statement about the birth certificate implies at least that she does not know if it is authentic or not. Actually, I think she implies that she KNOWS it is not authentic.

No. The plaintiff alleges that the released birth certificate is a forgery. It doesn't matter to the defense because a birth certificate is not required to file to be on the ballot, hence the statement, "even if you had an authentic birth certificate it wouldn't be necessary."

Why wouldn't she simply have said that the plaintiffs already have an authentic birth certificate?

Because it would be hearsay. She isn't an expert on birth certificates. She did say that every court that has ruled on the birth certificate issue has ruled that Obama is eligible to be President. Therefore, she implied the birth certificate was authentic.

Words are important, especially in law. Skilled attorneys do not make mistakes like this.

The mistake would be for her to testify as to the authenticity of the birth certificate since she's not an expert.

 

[Winman]

No. The plaintiff alleges that the released birth certificate is a forgery. It doesn't matter to the defense because a birth certificate is not required to file to be on the ballot, hence the statement, "even if you had an authentic birth certificate it wouldn't be necessary."

I wouldn't have made any statements at all about Obama's birth certificate, I would have simply argued that a birth certificate is not necessary to be on the ballot in New Jersey.

The fact she said "even if" is puzzling. Why would she say such a thing?

Because it would be hearsay. She isn't an expert on birth certificates. She did say that every court that has ruled on the birth certificate issue has ruled that Obama is eligible to be President. Therefore, she implied the birth certificate was authentic.

Perhaps this lady knows nothing about whether the birth certificate is real or not. The wise thing to do would be not to mention it whatsoever and focus on the argument that a birth certificate is not necessary in New Jersey. So why make a foolish and unnecessary statement about Obama's birth certificate?

The mistake would be for her to testify as to the authenticity of the birth certificate since she's not an expert.

The wisest thing would have been not to make any statement at all about Obama's birth certificate and simply argue that a birth certificate is not required in New Jersey.

By making this "even if" statement about the birth certificate, she is called into question about whether she has knowledge whether the certificate is real or not.

I am not talking about the eligibility to be on the ballot in New Jersey. She will win this argument easily if that is the law.

But if another investigation props up concerning who published this fake document (if it is proven in court to be false), then her statements in this proceeding might be used against her. If she claimed the document as real in this proceeding, she could be guilty of fraud. However, by saying "even if" she could effectively argue she admitted the document was false. Or, she could argue she did not know either way.

But if real evidence surfaced that she was directly involved in producing a fake document to defraud the people, she could claim she admitted in court the document was fake, or at least that she never denied it.

You have to wonder why she made any statement at all about Obama's birth certificate. It was not necessary, and not too wise to make such a statement, unless there is the motive to CYA.

Do you get that?

 

[InTheLight]

You have to wonder why she made any statement at all about Obama's birth certificate. It was not necessary, and not too wise to make such a statement, unless there is the motive to CYA.

Do you get that?

It is necessary because the plaintiff was entering it into evidence. I agree with you that she didn't need to bring the authenticity of it--one way or the other-- into the argument. What's stupid is the opposing attorney's ignorance of the New Jersey law regarding zero necessity of having a birth certificate, and then arguing that the birth certificate is faked. He's basically wasting taxpayers money with silly lawsuits.

 

[Winman]

It is necessary because the plaintiff was entering it into evidence. I agree with you that she didn't need to bring the authenticity of it--one way or the other-- into the argument. What's stupid is the opposing attorney's ignorance of the New Jersey law regarding zero necessity of having a birth certificate, and then arguing that the birth certificate is faked. He's basically wasting taxpayers money with silly lawsuits.

Well, we don't know the actual language of the law. The law might not say a thing about a birth certificate being required, but that doesn't necessarily mean the law doesn't require it. The law may say something to the effect that the person on the ballot must meet all federal constitutional requirements for example. This, Obama may be required to prove he was born in the U.S.A. or meet the other requirements.

Just because this lady is saying the birth certificate is not required does not mean it is necessarily true.

 

[InTheLight]

Well, we don't know the actual language of the law. The law might not say a thing about a birth certificate being required, but that doesn't necessarily mean the law doesn't require it. The law may say something to the effect that the person on the ballot must meet all federal constitutional requirements for example. This, Obama may be required to prove he was born in the U.S.A. or meet the other requirements.

Just because this lady is saying the birth certificate is not required does not mean it is necessarily true.

We do know the exact language of the law. She cites the law in front of the judge, giving chapter and verse. You are correct in that the law does not say a thing about a birth certificate. Ipso facto, it is not required to get on the primary ballot in New Jersey. Only 1,000 valid signatures on a petition are required, and it does not matter whether or not the candidate wants to be a candidate. It's all covered in the video. Just watch the first video between about 8 minutes and 14 minutes.

 

[Winman]

We do know the exact language of the law. She cites the law in front of the judge, giving chapter and verse. You are correct in that the law does not say a thing about a birth certificate. Ipso facto, it is not required to get on the primary ballot in New Jersey. Only 1,000 valid signatures on a petition are required, and it does not matter whether or not the candidate wants to be a candidate. It's all covered in the video. Just watch the first video between about 8 minutes and 14 minutes.

Again, it is not that simple. The argument is over whether Obama is a natural born citizen.

Read about it here.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

The fact is, the case is still going on. If it were as simple as you insist, it would have been dismissed several months ago.

 

[InTheLight]

Again, it is not that simple. The argument is over whether Obama is a natural born citizen.

Read about it here.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

The fact is, the case is still going on. If it were as simple as you insist, it would have been dismissed several months ago.

How could it have been dismissed months ago when the case was just filed on May 11t?

The New Jersey case has to do with whether or not Obama can legally be put on the primary ballot. The plaintiff says he cannot because he doesn't have a legit birth certificate. Turns out a birth certificate isn't necessary to get on the ballot in New Jersey. The next hearing is on Wednesday.

 

[Winman]

How could it have been dismissed months ago when the case was just filed on May 11t?

The New Jersey case has to do with whether or not Obama can legally be put on the primary ballot. The plaintiff says he cannot because he doesn't have a legit birth certificate. Turns out a birth certificate isn't necessary to get on the ballot in New Jersey. The next hearing is on Wednesday.

Maybe I am reading the wrong reports, but here is a report on this issue dated April 13, '12, almost two months ago.

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/04/nj-ballot-ruling-on-obama-eligibility/

Mario Apuzzo, in his opening remarks, told Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin that New Jersey election law says that a candidate must show that he or she qualifies for the office. NJSA 19:23-7 clearly says:

Accompanying the petition, each person indorsed therein shall file a certificate, stating that he is qualified for the office mentioned in the petition, that he is a member of the political party named therein, that he consents to stand as a candidate for nomination at the ensuing primary election of such political party, and that, if nominated, he consents to accept the nomination, to which shall be annexed the oath of allegiance . . .

That law governs primary elections for any office except that of President of the United States. But NJSA 19:25-3 says that a candidate need not consent to accept the nomination, and may not have a slogan appear with his name. But in every other detail, a Presidential primary nominating petition must conform to all other requirements of law. A straightforward read would mean that, whether he consents to stand for nomination or not, he must still certify that he qualifies, and that he is a member of the party that the petition names.

Obama did not so certify. That was why Purpura and Moran objected. That is the basis of their Obama eligibility challenge…Keep reading