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

page: 31
64
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

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.


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.
www.teapartytribune.com...
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Le sigh




posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Obama has produced no other evidence to the court regarding his place of birth.


Nor has any other presidential hopeful in that state nor did he have to.... but hey, ignore the facts once again!

Also read this post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Think about it, then re-read it. When you understand it come back here!
edit on 17-4-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 




Obama has produced no other evidence to the court regarding his place of birth.


Neither has his accusers produced evidence regarding his place of birth. It is not up to Obama to 'produce' any 'evidence to the court regarding his place of birth' what so ever. It is up to the challengers to produce evidence that Obama has not met the requirements to satisfy State law on ballot access.

I take it from your posting history that you are not familiar with or very much enamoured of the United States Constitution. That is too bad, it is really a wonderful document. Its provisions have enabled a diverse, multiracial, multicultural population to rise to the most powerful, most advanced nation on Earth. You could probably find much enlightenment in studying it closely and learning about it and the interesting men who played a part in its formulation.

In the meantime, please try to remember that we are living in America, not Kampuchea. We have a well understood Constitution, a functional legal system, and the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. It is the responsibility of the accuser to prove the case, not the other way around.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Neither has Mitt Romney.

How about this Le Smartypants, go find ANY candidate in the history of the country that has provided their original birth cert to all the states their running for President in.

I'll wait.

Go on... I've got plenty of time.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

[color=gold]How did this end up in the HOAX forum???



1) [color=#00BFFF]Here is the story from Corsi... an admitted ANTI-Obama etc... ad nausium.

2) Putting this under HOAXes is very misleading.

3) It's as if ATS Obama Mod says "Oh, hai... look, there are 20+ pages of interest, yup, it's Anti-My-Savior HOAX"

4) If ATS can add +G for google +F for FAIL facebook then add a link to WHY it was moved to HOAXes (somewhere in 20+ pages!!!1)

So, here's the court proceeding??? I guess that's a HOAX? Something is seriously wrong.

5) OP is merely reporting on what is claimed to have happened in the courtroom??

6) Come on ... some of these partisan MODS need to be fired and replaced with political agnostics/atheists
 


 

[color=#00BFFF]Link to the 'evil' WND & Corsi
edit on 4·17·12 by DrMattMaddix because: ... Colorizing



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

How many previous Presidents have given copies of their birth certificates to every secretary of state? Or even been asked for them?


How many have called Kenya their home?
edit on 17-4-2012 by Nite_wing because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Wow you really dont read and comprehend do you...you are the one who is constantly putting lies out there.
here is the actual act of 1795...read the whole thing.....

www.earlyamerica.com...



SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed. SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, that the Act, intitled, "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.


This act strengthened the NATURALIZATION requirements.....it nothing to do with natural born citizen and did not change the Act of 1790 as far as the definition of Natural Born.....it only dealt with aliens becoming plain old citizens.
edit on 17-4-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



"Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States"
edit on 17-4-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)
.....they still put this part in there....so it must be important.
edit on 17-4-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DrMattMaddix
 


It's in the HOAX section because the OP was a HOAX.

And guess what, the person who first posted the story has admitted it was a HOAX.

So... that's why.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


www.state.gov...




7 FAM 1100
ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF
U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY
7 FAM 1110
ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY
BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
(Office of Origin: CA/OCS/PRI)
7 FAM 1111 INTRODUCTION
(CT:CON-314; 08-21-2009)
a. U.S. citizenship may be acquired either at birth or through naturalization
subsequent to birth. U.S. laws governing the acquisition of citizenship at
birth embody two legal principles:
(1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) - a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship. In addition to common law, this principle is embodied in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the various U.S. citizenship and
nationality statutes.
(2) Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline) - a concept of Roman or
civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the
citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through
statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for
conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.
b. National vs. Citizen: While most people and countries use the terms
“citizenship” and “nationality” interchangeably, U.S. law differentiates
between the two. Under current law all U.S. citizens are also U.S.
nationals, but not all U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens. The term “national
of the United States”, as defined by statute (INA 101 (a)(22) (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(22)) includes all citizens of the United States, and other persons
who owe allegiance to the United States but who have not been granted
the privilege of citizenship.
U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 - Consular Affairs
7 FAM 1110 Page 2 of 13
(1) Nationals of the United States who are not citizens owe allegiance
to the United States and are entitled to the consular protection of
the United States when abroad, and to U.S. documentation, such as
U.S. passports with appropriate endorsements. They are not
entitled to voting representation in Congress and, under most
state laws, are not entitled to vote in Federal, state, or local
elections except in their place of birth. (See 7 FAM 012; 7 FAM
1300 Appendix B Endorsement 09.)
(2) Historically, Congress, through statutes, granted U.S. non-citizen
nationality to persons born or inhabiting territory acquired by the
United States through conquest or treaty. At one time or other
natives and certain other residents of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, the Philippines, Guam, and the Panama Canal Zone were
U.S. non-citizen nationals. (See 7 FAM 1120.)
(3) Under current law, only persons born in American Samoa and
Swains Island are U.S. non-citizen nationals (INA 101(a)(29) (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(29) and INA 308(1) (8 U.S.C. 1408)). (See 7 FAM
1125.)


That's the state department telling you you're wrong.

If you don't believe that then why have NUMEROUS attempts been made to try and redefine citizenship to mean children born to US Parents?

Examples:

"Citizenship Reform Act of 2005" (H.R. 698)
"Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007" (H.R. 1940)
"Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009" (H.R. 1868)
Senate Joint Resolution 6

If it is the way you claim, those would be unnecessary... and yet...



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Your post says nothing about natural birth which is required to be president....he was illegally put in office.




posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrMattMaddix

[color=gold]How did this end up in the HOAX forum???



1) [color=#00BFFF]Here is the story from Corsi... an admitted ANTI-Obama etc... ad nausium.

2) Putting this under HOAXes is very misleading.

3) It's as if ATS Obama Mod says "Oh, hai... look, there are 20+ pages of interest, yup, it's Anti-My-Savior HOAX"

4) If ATS can add +G for google +F for FAIL facebook then add a link to WHY it was moved to HOAXes (somewhere in 20+ pages!!!1)

So, here's the court proceeding??? I guess that's a HOAX? Something is seriously wrong.

5) OP is merely reporting on what is claimed to have happened in the courtroom??

6) Come on ... some of these partisan MODS need to be fired and replaced with political agnostics/atheists




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.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrMattMaddix
How did this end up in the HOAX forum???


Because it is a hoax - and hoaxes go in the hoax forum....


Putting this under HOAXes is very misleading.


Why do you think it is misleading when it is a hoax - "Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery" - care to show us exactly where obama's lawyer admitted it was a forgery? No, of course you cannot, as that claim is just a hoax!


It's as if ATS Obama Mod says "Oh, hai... look, there are 20+ pages of interest, yup, it's Anti-My-Savior HOAX"


So you do not think hoaxes should go in the hoax bin.... why do you think that?


So, here's the court proceeding??? I guess that's a HOAX?


No but no one said that was a hoax...


Something is seriously wrong.


very true, with birthers making lies up about Obama, as this thread shows.


Come on ... some of these partisan MODS need to be fired and replaced with political agnostics/atheists


So you think mods should be fired for putting a hoax in the hoax bin.... How silly is that!
edit on 17-4-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Unbelievable people are still talking about this and complaining this is in HOAX.

I mean, I know that Birthers don't listen to logic or reason....evident by them continuing with these ridiculous arguments after losing tons of court cases...but come on...give it up.


I just really wish Obama would call an official press conference to announce "The sky is blue"...just so we can see the silly threads denying that the sky is blue.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by AuranVector
 


Two things:

1. It wasn't just the title, it was the substance, the Tea Party Tribune also said the substance was a hoax... you should go take it up with them.

EDIT: I now see that the Tea Party Tribune has CHANGED their website... they have REMOVED the clarification which ACCURATELY explained that the article was false.. AND... they removed the video links which PROVE the article is false... so instead of leaving he correction up, they simply removed the video so no one will know they are lying.

Birthers/Tea Party people, this should be enough to make you re-consider the motives of your compatriots. These folks are just lying scumbags.

2. You say:


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.

How is that interesting? No candidate in ANY state produces ID to be on a ballot. The logistics alone would make that not feasible.

In other words, it's not JUST New Jersey, it's all the states, and it's not interesting, it's mundanely obvious. Unless you're looking for a conspiracy.
edit on 18-4-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by DrMattMaddix
How did this end up in the HOAX forum???




Come on ... some of these partisan MODS need to be fired and replaced with political agnostics/atheists


So you think mods should be fired for putting a hoax in the hoax bin.... How silly is that!


Off topic but a fitting answer : "Oh, Hai, we made a mistake in firing you partisan MODs. Sorry."

Excuse for OP : No way I'm sitting through over an hour or more of courts (unless subpoenaed.)

I trust Corsi and his research crew to apologize when they and all people PROVE openly and with ALL documentation.

I have to, and so should anyone, provide adequate documentation. Don't look all offended.
 


Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by AuranVector
 

...
Birthers/Tea Party people, this should be enough to make you re-consider the motives of your compatriots. These folks are just lying scumbags.
...


When was the last time that you lied? People, STOP looking for a savior. We're all human.

Tea Party people have their hearts and minds in the right place.

They attempt to defend what they believe is the American way. Brady Bunch and Apple Pie! (Mostly)

Stop defending the person. Watch what Obama DOES. Actions speak far better than words.

Forget the person. Look what he has signed/approved and then get back to us.
 

I would like to see people defending Obama's approved bills recently. Like NDAA.

If you want to shut up the Obamanoids??? and get to REAL cutting issues?

Bring attention and focus on the ACTIONS. What has he approved of lately?

Do you know? Have you read?
edit on 4·18·12 by DrMattMaddix because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DrMattMaddix
 


Trusting Corsi is a stupid mistake.

You should go watch the video btw. No need to trust anyone but yourself in this case.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by DrMattMaddix
 


Trusting Corsi is a stupid mistake.

You should go watch the video btw. No need to trust anyone but yourself in this case.


My time is too important. Life is too short for petty BS.

Read my edited post above... the part about focusing on actions.


Bring attention and focus on the ACTIONS. What has he approved of lately?

Do you know? Have you read?
edit on 4·18·12 by DrMattMaddix because: ...Bringing quote into post.


Also: choosing who to trust is based on their past actions...

As a kid I also trusted Nixon... THEN I trusted Woodward and Burnstein. No one is perfect.

edit on 4·18·12 by DrMattMaddix because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


What a joke. You can't actually find any proof at all for that claim...

Next your going to start (mis)quoting Vattel at me.

Jui Solis is the entire law of the law when it comes to citizenship... unless you're born in say Guam.

That's it.

Born in America, to Russians on a holiday, your a citizen. Not a second class citizen, but a Natural Born Citizen who the US has jurisdiction over... Now, you could claim Russian citizenry through Jus sanguinis, but that would depend if Russia recognises that (they do I believe). In that case, depending on how the laws of both countries work, you could be a dual citizen, or you could be forced to choose...

But that's NOT the important thing. The important thing is that the ONLY definition used anywhere in any court, ESP since the 14th Amendment (which is based on Jui Solis, as the State Department states correctly) is that a Natural Born Citizen is someone born on US soil.

That's it.

Nothing else.

Everything else is a fabrication by birthers. On par with, "Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery". Total BS.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DrMattMaddix
 


If you haven't watched the video, then you actually don't KNOW if the claim is true.

You can't trust the birthers (god knows why), but you should also consider that those of us that HAVE watched the entire video [raises hand] know for a fact that the claim that, "Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery" is false.

If fact it's not even "Obama Lawyer" it's a NJ DNC lawyer. Party candidates don't put themselves on ballots, party's do.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Well, to me it's all tail chasing... some people will burn themselves out on the topic.

I'm more concerned with the other records that are under wraps.

Stop and think. If it was you, wouldn't any sane, honest and above board human being just say to all comers...

"Oh, Hai, I found ALL of these documents that you all were arguing about. Here have a really close look."

If you can't understand the anger and high resentment there then you will never understand that Tea Party

People have looked at what Obama has been approving and THEY DON'T approve.

Obamanoids as a class of people just defend the "man" not the actions/approvals/policies.

So, defend him and pseudo attacks on "the savior" I just want to see his records" ...

Smells like Treason (by deeds.) That's execution. I'm just sayin'.





new topics
top topics
 
64
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join