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

The Objection to the NJ court decision:
www.scribd.com...

(last paragraph)

The time-honored American common law definition of the clause is a child born in the country to citizen parents. There is no dispute that Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was a British citizen) andU.S. citizen mother. Being born to an alien father, Obama also inherited hisfather’s British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1948. All this demonstrates that Obama was not born in the full and complete legal,political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is therefore not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and cannot be placed on theNew Jersey primary ballot.
Dated: April 10, 2012 s/Mario ApuzzoMario ApuzzoAttorney for ObjectingPetitioner

What part of this is a lie?

Why in the world is the pdf file for this alleged BC still on the Whitehouse website? Is that not a declaration of authenticity?

Why are multiple media sources reporting this story and on ATS it is a hoax?
(google "Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery")

About 3,640,000 results

I went to page 10 of the google results and it was still showing relevant articles.

From what I could make out on the 2nd video at tickerforum.org... at the 32:00 minute mark the lawyer said "It (internet BC) can not be authenticated."

Is the difference between saying "can not be authenticated" and calling it a "forgery" enough of a stretch to call this a hoax.

Like it or not, MSM suppression (including ATS) or not, this story is viral.

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
What part of this is a lie?

This part "The time-honored American common law definition of the clause is a child born in the country to citizen parents."

That is NOT the definition for naturally born.

Why in the world is the pdf file for this alleged BC still on the Whitehouse website?

Why shouldnt it be?

Is that not a declaration of authenticity?

No, why do you think that? Do you think that PDF is the birth certificate?

Why are multiple media sources reporting this story and on ATS it is a hoax?

because it is a hoax...

(google "Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery")

That is a lie, Obama's lawyer NEVER SAID THAT - if you think that they did show us exactly in the video where she said it...

From what I could make out on the 2nd video at tickerforum.org... at the 32:00 minute mark the lawyer said "It (internet BC) can not be authenticated."

Because that is NOT the birth certificate.... do you think it is?

Is the difference between saying "can not be authenticated" and calling it a "forgery" enough of a stretch to call this a hoax.

Yes, as the lawyer never said it was a forgery, and you do not seem to understand that the PDF is NOT the birth certificate...

This story is viral.

No, just a birther lie.

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
The Objection to the NJ court decision:
www.scribd.com...

(last paragraph)

The time-honored American common law definition of the clause is a child born in the country to citizen parents. There is no dispute that Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was a British citizen) andU.S. citizen mother. Being born to an alien father, Obama also inherited hisfather’s British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1948. All this demonstrates that Obama was not born in the full and complete legal,political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is therefore not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and cannot be placed on theNew Jersey primary ballot.
Dated: April 10, 2012 s/Mario ApuzzoMario ApuzzoAttorney for ObjectingPetitioner

What part of this is a lie?

I linked it once before, but I'll link it again to answer your question in detail. The Supreme Court decision U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark outlines in great detail why the above statement is completely false. A person need only be born on U.S. soil, so long as his parents are not part of an invading army or the parents are not foreign diplomats/ambassadors, to be considered a "natural" or "native born" citizen (the two terms are interchangeable).

reply to post by spoor


Aren't we going in circles ? The argument seems to be about him being a USA citizen, if the paper(s) that satisfactory provide for this requirement have been provided when applying for the candidacy, then there would be no possible arguments. Since the service that received them would just provide a guarantee to that fact (or be sanctioned by not acting on those legal requirements that are part of its function).

That is why the continuing of this process seems alien to anyone that lives in any law abiding nation, it seems proper only for a third world country...

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
What part of this is a lie?

This part "The time-honored American common law definition of the clause is a child born in the country to citizen parents."

That is NOT the definition for naturally born.

Why in the world is the pdf file for this alleged BC still on the Whitehouse website?

Why shouldnt it be?

Is that not a declaration of authenticity?

No, why do you think that? Do you think that PDF is the birth certificate?

Why are multiple media sources reporting this story and on ATS it is a hoax?

because it is a hoax...

(google "Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery")

That is a lie, Obama's lawyer NEVER SAID THAT - if you think that they did show us exactly in the video where she said it...

From what I could make out on the 2nd video at tickerforum.org... at the 32:00 minute mark the lawyer said "It (internet BC) can not be authenticated."

Because that is NOT the birth certificate.... do you think it is?

Is the difference between saying "can not be authenticated" and calling it a "forgery" enough of a stretch to call this a hoax.

Yes, as the lawyer never said it was a forgery, and you do not seem to understand that the PDF is NOT the birth certificate...

This story is viral.

No, just a birther lie.

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

That is NOT the definition for naturally born

.


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

Why in the world is the pdf file for this alleged BC still on the Whitehouse website?

Why shouldnt it be?

It is as bogus as Dollie Parton's chest.

Is that not a declaration of authenticity?

(Posting BC at Whitehouse.gov)

No, why do you think that?

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

www.wishtv.com...

Responding to critics' relentless claims, President Barack Obama on Wednesday produced a detailed Hawaii birth certificate in an extraordinary attempt to bury the issue of where he was born and confirm his legitimacy to hold office. He declared, "We do not have time for this kind of silliness."

Who is the liar?

reply to post by Human_Alien


This has already been exposed as a LIE, by the blog that popularised it. See the update at the link:

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.

I suggest that Dan Crosby has enough frequent liar miles to earn an around the world trip.

People, please.

The motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance". Some of you people really need to see to nurturing the BS meter in your brain before you go off on silly tangents like this.

Edit:

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..

This is an unusual event for any birther site, and especially ORYR. These folks NEVER, EVER admit to making an error, and especially not about misrepresentation of simple demonstrable fact. There must be something 'interesting' going on in birferdom for this to occur.

(excuse me while I go take a shower after reading ORYR and posting that link...)

hahahahaha - "it's a forgery and therefore can't be used as evidence for his non citizenship"

Best argument I've heard in years.

Originally posted by spoor

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!

For you to claim this, you would have had to be a witness to the fact that all these birthers never went the website. For you to state this claim you must have been present while all the birthers in the world were witnessed by you personally, having visited birther websites. How many birthers have you personally witnessed surfing the web engaging in those activities? To claim that you have, while not actually having done so, is being a false witness. In a court of law that behavior is a felony of pergury.

reply to post by LifeInDeath


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

The meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” has been addressed by various United States Supreme Court and other court cases. These cases show that the Framers did not use English common law to define what a “natural born Citizen” was but rather natural law and the law of nations which became federal common law. English common law continued to be used in the several states to provide the law on property, contracts, torts, inheritance, criminal substance and procedure, and other areas, but not the law on federal matters such as national citizenship. In defining a “natural born citizen,” these cases made specific reference to the citizenship of the child’s parents at the time of the child’s birth. Low Hong did not cite any of these cases or even explain why their definition of a “natural born Citizen” should not be followed. These cases have defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents which is the definition provided by Emer de Vattel in his influential and celebrated treatise, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (1758 French edition) (1759 first English translation). These cases are The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (“Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, 'the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.'”) (emphasis in the original); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (which also took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively, when it quoted Vattel thus: “ ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’” Again: “ ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.’ (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)” (emphasis in original); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (favorably citing Minor v. Happersett).

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, stated: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,as distinguished from aliens or foreigners

'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. 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."

Even the INS distinguishes between native, natural born and naturalized....natural born is of citizen parentS...parents, neither of which owe allegiance to any other country.......which is only logical because you don't want a president who can be claimed ....

reply to post by tkwasny

In a court of law that behavior is a felony of pergury.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

None of what you say is necessary to come to the conclusion that people are remarking on stuff they haven't read. That many posters are reacting to the headline is patently obvious from the remarks they are making. That is, after all, why the headline was written in that way, to encourage people to have a knee-jerk reaction and ignore the actual facts.

That is a near perfect indication of an attempt at indoctrination: the writer puts the conclusion they want you to reach in the headline, then what ever is written in the article doesn't matter. The conclusion, instead of coming at the end and as a result of a reasoned argument, comes first and replaces the reasoned argument.

You really can regain reuse of your built in Bull Sh*t meter. It is possible. The human mind is a wondrous thing. It may require a bit of detox followed by some honest practice though. I recommend starting by going cold turkey for a couple of weeks: turn off the Faux News, stop reading the Murdoch press, and listen to music on the radio instead of paranoid losers like Beck and Limbaugh. These guys are purposely trying to smother your BS meter; don't let them get away with it.

Deny Ignorance

reply to post by timetothink


Cont...by another country.


Not every citizen is natural born....nor does every citizen have the right to be president.....especially if one of their parents owes allegiance to another country.


Citing Won Kim Ark is incorrect. It had nothing to do with defining natural born...the supreme court deferred to what the founders meant by natural born.

Justice Grey, 23 years later in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) repeated what Justice Waite said in Minor about the need to resort to common law when defining “natural born Citizen:” "In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision." U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

In both of these cases, the Supreme Court did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment to define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, both courts said that the meaning of that term must be found by resort to the "common law." What do both of these Supreme Court decisions tell us? First, they show that there is a difference between a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” and an Article II “natural born Citizen.” If the two terms were the same, the Supreme Court in both of these cases would not have said that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not contained in the Constitution, for the Fourteenth Amendment was already part of the Constitution and the Court could have easily said that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is contained right in the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, the Supreme Court in both of these cases also said that the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not contained in the Constitution but rather in the "common law." Here we have clear evidence that the United States Supreme Court itself has recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is and has stated that its definition may be found only in the "common law." Hence, we can see that simply being declared a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment does not make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Congressional Acts has changed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” for these sources address only the question of what is a “citizen” and do not touch upon what is a “natural born Citizen.” “The Fourteenth Amendment and the domestic citizenship statutes necessarily mean that Congress left determination of what categories of citizenship are “natural born” to other law. . . .” Gabriel J. Chin, Why Senator McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 08-14 (2008). Also, for one to be declared an Article II “natural born Citizen,” one must satisfy the "common law" definition for that term. The question then becomes to what "common law" are we to look for the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen?”

we have been deceived and I wish the obots would just come out and admit it instead of arguing that the potus is legal.......he is not.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
What's next?....a non-human robotic president?

Originally posted by DECEPTICON
"I will rule the universe, even if I am the only one left in the universe"

All those strange scars just a coincidence? NOT...

Is Obama a Decepticon?
At the opening of the film, the leader of the Autobots explains that on their planet, the Autobots fought for freedom, while the Decepticons fought for tyranny. Since no one could plausibly argue Obama is fighting for greater freedom, but a case could be made his policies are pushing us toward a more tyrannical federal government … clue No. 1, Obama is a Decepticon. Later in the film, a human accomplice of the Decepticons proclaims, “You have to be on the side of progress if you want to be part of history”: Hmmm, “progress,” progressive, … yep, clue No. 2 Obama is a Decepticon. LINK

Forgery Admitted . Hi I am new here at ATS. Is this web site run by the goverment? I have been watching for a long time and I see things going bad here at ATS . This web site is a sham of shrills and brainless trolls.. BHO is a fake and is a treasonist scum bag beyound a shawdow of doubt. this post will be deleted soon . record it.

Originally posted by rockinground
Forgery Admitted . Hi I am new here at ATS. Is this web site run by the goverment? I have been watching for a long time and I see things going bad here at ATS . This web site is a sham of shrills and brainless trolls.. BHO is a fake and is a treasonist scum bag beyound a shawdow of doubt. this post will be deleted soon . record it.

You might be on to something. ATS run by the government? Maybe, loads of lefties here. Hope your post doesn't get deleted. If so, I'd say ATS is a propaganda machine for sure. Welcome to ATS. rockinground.

For quite awhile the posts that were anti-Obama were in the majority. Now, so many ATSers are having a love-fest with him. I agree.

reply to post by Human_Alien


I find it funny how many of us are sitting on our thumbs wondering what we should do. Um, hello, there are millions of us. Maybe even hundreds of millions. I am still wondering why we have NOT walked to the White House, walked inside, and served him with his eviction notice (pink slip). No use impeaching him, he's not even president.

And stop calling him president as well, clearly he is not OUR (the people) president. Right now the President is us, the People.

Evict him and deport him, for treason he should be jailed. Evict him from the property for being an illegal imposter.

Or are we going to sit on our thumbs some more. Here's a story for you:

While waiting to pay for gas at a local store, customers observed a mother was stumbling into her vehicle. When she finally got in, she turned on the windshield wipers, instead of the car. She fidgeted around, and still was not going anywhere. She tried to wipers some more. That was not going to get her home.

Customers started talking, about how drunk this woman was (or maybe something medically wrong, it was day time). Someone mentioned a kid being in the car, and at least 14 customers and three employees saw the child. No one knows what to do. Clearly this child was in danger if he left with this woman....

One person, angry that hes sitting in the very back of the line, wondering whats taking so damn long, and running late for work, spoke up. He yelled over the whole crowd as eyes glared into him. He asked a simple question.

"How many of you all are going to feel bad tomorrow when you read in the paper that a mother killed her child in our town after leaving this store."

"What should we do? We can't stop her", Some chimed.

"Call the cops, and block her in and go ask her if she is ok, make conversation."

Cell phones came out, and a lady went out there to ask her if she was ok.

I could not believe how late I was to work over this.... Oh and that no one spoke up for the kid....

Time for sleep....

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by spoor

 

Aren't we going in circles ? The argument seems to be about him being a USA citizen, if the paper(s) that satisfactory provide for this requirement have been provided when applying for the candidacy, then there would be no possible arguments. Since the service that received them would just provide a guarantee to that fact (or be sanctioned by not acting on those legal requirements that are part of its function).

That is why the continuing of this process seems alien to anyone that lives in any law abiding nation, it seems proper only for a third world country...

So, your saying that the system runs smoothly, no one is corrupted, no one has an agenda, or at least the government, and no one would cover these things up? Like, if I went for a job, I have to prove my citizenship, to prove I'm legal. If they do this for a waffle house, surely they would do it for presidency?

If that is what you are saying, how do illegal aliens get jobs?? Slip the employer a little bit of money? Promise cheap labor? Surely if this has become a big problem in this country, same could go for the government. I believe there is an agenda at hand, everyone seems to think ahead four years, and I believe they are (government) thinking 100+ years ahead.

I would like the "world leaders" to answer a simple question.... What is the ultimate goal in all this labor and suffering? When will we reach the point of self-suffiency, and live peacefully? Is that what we are going for here, or just more elections, more promises, more problems?

reply to post by Human_Alien


What is this???

Lie #2357 ???

I think the sheer magnitude of lies should wake up the birthers

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
Forgery for sure thanks for the welcome sad eyed lady. What kills more black people per year than anything else ? Guns ,car accidents,cancer, ( abortion! ) maafi 21 ,1 thru 15 on you tube (choice ) the man who wrote the scum bag book (choice) BHO is a scum bag. delete this soon , copy it, record it, ATS is run by the goverment.

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady

Originally posted by rockinground
Forgery Admitted . Hi I am new here at ATS. Is this web site run by the goverment? I have been watching for a long time and I see things going bad here at ATS . This web site is a sham of shrills and brainless trolls.. BHO is a fake and is a treasonist scum bag beyound a shawdow of doubt. this post will be deleted soon . record it.

You might be on to something. ATS run by the government? Maybe, loads of lefties here. Hope your post doesn't get deleted. If so, I'd say ATS is a propaganda machine for sure. Welcome to ATS. rockinground.

For quite awhile the posts that were anti-Obama were in the majority. Now, so many ATSers are having a love-fest with him. I agree.

edit on 4/14/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: add something

Loads of lefties? You do realize some of the most flagged threads for the last couple years are obama birth certificate threads...

Originally posted by sting130u
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

I find it funny how many of us are sitting on our thumbs wondering what we should do. Um, hello, there are millions of us. Maybe even hundreds of millions. I am still wondering why we have NOT walked to the White House, walked inside, and served him with his eviction notice (pink slip). No use impeaching him, he's not even president.

And stop calling him president as well, clearly he is not OUR (the people) president. Right now the President is us, the People.

Evict him and deport him, for treason he should be jailed. Evict him from the property for being an illegal imposter.

Or are we going to sit on our thumbs some more. Here's a story for you:

While waiting to pay for gas at a local store, customers observed a mother was stumbling into her vehicle. When she finally got in, she turned on the windshield wipers, instead of the car. She fidgeted around, and still was not going anywhere. She tried to wipers some more. That was not going to get her home.

Customers started talking, about how drunk this woman was (or maybe something medically wrong, it was day time). Someone mentioned a kid being in the car, and at least 14 customers and three employees saw the child. No one knows what to do. Clearly this child was in danger if he left with this woman....

One person, angry that hes sitting in the very back of the line, wondering whats taking so damn long, and running late for work, spoke up. He yelled over the whole crowd as eyes glared into him. He asked a simple question.

"How many of you all are going to feel bad tomorrow when you read in the paper that a mother killed her child in our town after leaving this store."

"What should we do? We can't stop her", Some chimed.

"Call the cops, and block her in and go ask her if she is ok, make conversation."

Cell phones came out, and a lady went out there to ask her if she was ok.

I could not believe how late I was to work over this.... Oh and that no one spoke up for the kid....

Time for sleep....

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