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

Originally posted by 1825114
So why was this marked a hoax?

because the thread title and main claim was just made up

Did she not say the things the article said she said?

no.

Originally posted by NorEaster

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.

edit on 4/14/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

Please get your facts straight before you try to act high and mighty.......

He actually had 5 with the slave, her name was Sally Hemmings and it was about 10 years after Jefferson's wife had died. He didn't "knock her up", he had an ongoing relationship with her for many, many years. He also didn't reject any of the 5, he wrote of all of them in his journal and even chose the name for several of them. Their names were Beverly, born 1798; an unnamed daughter that died as an infant, born 1799; Harriet, born 1801; Madison, born 1805; and Eston, born 1809.

Please stop spreading disinformation in a sad attempt to distract from the topic at hand. Now that I have corrected your disinformation would you care to explain how it relates.to being a natural born citizen or how it relates to the question asked as to please tell where it was said that a public official is assumed to be under public scrutiny?

As far as the "grandiose statement" comment well I guess that you think his statements are moot and means nothing? The man is one of the fathers of our government and I am sure he had a much better insight into the requirements they wanted in our government than you ever could.

You couldn't even come back with a rational or logical rebuttal and had to stoop to smear tactics to try and discredit his statement as if you have never made a mistake or done something wrong. Please since you have never done anything wrong or ever made a bad decision feel free to cast the first stone. Perhaps since you are so perfect we should hang you from a cross and start a religion in your name.

The fact is that you are just like the leader that you seem to idolize and when you can't make an intelligent rebuttal or argument you resort to smearing and belittling. I am truly beginning to understand your unwavering support for Obama, its the law of attraction.

Here is the 3 part video from youtube.

I can't get the other two to embed yet, but here are the links.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
I listened to about 2.5 hrs of this administrative hearing.
I did not hear here say that she admits that the BC is a forgery.

What the judge is saying in the 2nd video is that B.O. has no reason to show the NJ Sec of State, because the states language in the law do not require a B.C., drivers license or SSN card as proof of qualifying. So the law must be changed.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by spoor

 

Spoor i am not getting into that old argument with you again....

I disagree with you and your guy spits on the constitution...the end.

I'm not 'spoor', but I'd like to respond...

...I'm not a democrat (I'm a fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republican). I didn't vote for President Obama, and I probably won't vote for him next time. He's not "my guy".

HOWEVER, whether I voted for him or not, and whether I think he is doing a good job or not, is irrelevant. He IS IN FACT the duly-elected President of the United States, and he appears to legally be eligible to be so. Therefore, this president (the "Office"or "Position" of President, if not the man) is due all the respect of any other person who has held the office , or will ever hold the office, of the Presidency.

This is the United States. The President (whoever that person may be at any given time) is the President of everyone, not just the people who like him, and not just the people who voted for him. Just because some people don't like the policies of a specific president does not give them the right to engage in a witch hunt in an attempt to undermine the Presidents' power (and that's exactly what the Birthers are engaged in -- a witch hunt that has no purpose except to undermine the power of a duly-elected president they don't like).

The is the U.S., not a third-world country. We are better than that. You don't need to respect the man's policies, but you need to respect that he is the President. If we don't respect the power of a duly-elected president (whether you like him or not) then we are no better than one of those central American "Banana Republics" of the 1960s and 1970s.

Originally posted by Violater1

I can't get the other two to embed yet, but here are the links.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
I listened to about 2.5 hrs of this administrative hearing.
I did not hear here say that she admits that the BC is a forgery.

What the judge is saying in the 2nd video is that B.O. has no reason to show the NJ Sec of State, because the states language in the law do not require a B.C., drivers license or SSN card as proof of qualifying. So the law must be changed.

You listened to two and a half hours of this -- I applaud your fortitude. I wonder if there's a transcript? It would make it a lot easier. I just listened to a few minutes of it.

You're saying that a political candidate in New Jersey does NOT have to show a BC, driver's license or SSN to qualify to run for office? It's incredible.

If that's true, the law needs to be changed.

reply to post by Human_Alien


Dude, how do you manage to post so many hoaxes and not get banned?

15l.) [HOAX]: In the event you Post more than three items that are later determined to be of an obviously hoax, fraudulent, or faked nature, your account may be terminated without warning.

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

Dude, how do you manage to post so many hoaxes and not get banned?

15l.) [HOAX]: In the event you Post more than three items that are later determined to be of an obviously hoax, fraudulent, or faked nature, your account may be terminated without warning.

He is currently under a temp posting ban actually.

Pika-Steph at tickerforum.org...

Actually, I see the judge as being pretty helpful to the plaintiff. He repeated himself a number of times in saying that the WH BC was a problem - but - that the document itself is not at issue before him because it was not required in NJ. He was pretty much leading the plaintiffs to where they needed to go.

He also was VERY helpful when it came to waiving the document expert's testimony and stipulating that the BC could not be used as any sort of verification whatsoever for Obama's eligibility for the ballot. He went so far as asking Ms. Hill point blank: Do you stipulate?!

Anyone with half a brain in their head or ANY experience in trial law would know that you don't stipulate to something like that unless you REALLY, REALLY don't want that BC to be the subject of scrutiny.

If the BC was legit there is no ****ing way as an attorney I would stipulate to that. NFW. But she did.

By stipulation of a document's inadmissibility, you are therefore basically admitting there's a problem with it from an evidentiary perspective. I'm pretty sure this is now going to come back to haunt the administration in other jurisdiction(s).

If you want to read a couple of pages of intelligent discussion of this subject and actually learn something you might read the post linked above.

Originally posted by DJW001

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.

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).

I stand by that statement. It's what I heard in the section of video I watched.

"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?

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 a presidential candidate is not eligible under Title 19 --

I am repeating what I heard from the section of video I listened to. Hill is representing Obama's interests in his New Jersey campaign.

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.

So what issues would have allowed this case to go to trial?

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.

That was not in the section I watched. Did you watch the whole thing?

I don't think a Vrilfrau would be working for the Obama campaign.

Incidently, I am NOT a "Birther." I don't have any problems believing Obama was born in Hawaii. I don't think Obama's original BC exists anymore -- for whatever reason.

Before Obama was nominated, his camp was saying Obama's original BC was destroyed.

But the story has changed so many times since, who knows what the truth is.

The Birthers have been treated badly. They have legitimate questions.

Obama has a murky past and I believe he is psychologically damaged goods.
He's probably a narcissist, and maybe even a sociopath.

In any case, I depise Obama. He is worse than Bush -- and I hated Bush.

Yes it is also on CBS news and the Washington Times, also hot news with the Arizona Sheriff .

I didnt catch the Hoax part but as of yesterday it is still on the news source sites.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


He is not a king and I don't have to respect him....he is doing everything he can to dismantle the constitution and destroy this country.

We the people are the government and when that government becomes corrupt it is up to us to fix it, not just leave it because "he's the president".

And my reply to spoor was about the natural born citizen clause in the constitution....not the bc crap.

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
By stipulation of a document's inadmissibility,

This is something that birthers refuse to accept. The PDF displayed on the whitehouse webpage is NOT Obama's long form birth certificate, nor have they claimed that it is. Why is that so hard for birthers to understand?

If you want to read a couple of pages of intelligent discussion of this subject and actually learn something you might read the post linked above.

Not really, just birther lies, like:

OBAMA LAWYER ADMITS FORGERY

Obama's lawyer did NOT admit it was a forgery, that false claim is why this thread is in the hoax bin...

So not really intelligent discussion, just the same lies posted her...

Originally posted by AuranVector
I don't think Obama's original BC exists anymore -- for whatever reason.

Even though the state of Hawaii has certified both his long form, and short form?

Before Obama was nominated, his camp was saying Obama's original BC was destroyed.

Sure about that? Source?

But the story has changed so many times since,

Birthers are the ones who keep changing their stories...

The Birthers have been treated badly. They have legitimate questions.

no they have not, and their questions have been answered, but they refuse to accept the answers...

Originally posted by wonderworld
Yes it is also on CBS news and the Washington Times, also hot news with the Arizona Sheriff .

I didnt catch the Hoax part but as of yesterday it is still on the news source sites.

edit on 14-4-2012 by wonderworld because: (no reason given)

This was on CBS news?

What did they say?

Do you have any links?

If Fox news doesn't cover this story it will confirm to me what I always believed.

ALL news agencies are controlled by the same entity (government) to keep the people with the "us vs them" mentality. It's much easier to control them that way.

This story would utterly destroy Obama, so they won't show it if that's true. It will tip the scales of power too much.

ETA I only read the first few pages. I'm going to read more thoroughly to make an edit later. Didn't know there was 24....

Oh well, still like this story much more.

Originally posted by TheLegend
This story would utterly destroy Obama,

Why do you think that? It is just a birther lie, posted here by a someone who did not bother to check the facts, just blindly posted lies from a birther site.

If Fox news doesn't cover this story

What story? Oh, you mean "birthers lose yet another court case as they have no evidence"

Oh well, still like this story much more.

That is just another birther fake story!

reply to post by spoor


If the needed paper had been submitted then there wouldn't be any argument about his ability to run for the job.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
If the needed paper had been submitted

What needed paper? What makes you think any paper had to be submitted?

wait

people still think that pdf is the actual real BC ?

really ?

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
wait

people still think that pdf is the actual real BC ?

really ?

Yes, really. They do not even bother to visit the website where it is, and read the text there.

They just blindly spew forth the lies that they read on a birther website, without actually doing any checking - just like the op did in this thread!