Posted on 04/17/2012 8:34:06 AM PDT by varmintman
From what I can see, the lawyer doesn't say anything about the veracity of the birth certificate, only that it's not required in New Jersey, so it's irrelevant to the issue. Am I reading that wrong?
I don’t believe the lawyer admitted the BC was a fake.
The argument was a HYPOTHETICAL — “assuming the BC was a fake, Obama is still a natural born citizen because .....”
It’s not an admission the BC is fake, it’s just an argument that the Court doesn’t have to figure out, one way or the other, if the BC is fake.
” only that it’s not required in New Jersey, so it’s irrelevant to the issue. Am I reading that wrong?”
No, you are reading it correctly.
I cannot find where the headline matches the statements in the story. When I look at the Google search, I see the most credible link is WND and that sure doesn’t say much.
Although this shouldn't be the case the simple 9and disgraceful) fact is that Osama Obama's name will not be absent from a *single* state's ballot this November and he won't be removed from office because of this.Not in 2012...2013...2016...or 2017.
Although this shouldn't be the case the simple (and disgraceful) fact is that Osama Obama's name will not be absent from a *single* state's ballot this November and he won't be removed from office because of this.Not in 2012...2013...2016...or 2017.
Exactly what *I've* been saying for a long time.Not even the SCOTUS would touch such a case with a ten foot pole.
LOL, this nonsense again.
This is just more exaggerated conspiracy blather.
There is a good reason. Its crap.
What an absolute, total and completely misleading headline for this article. She is just arguing her position that it isn’t required (said the lawyer).
Wow. Just wow.
IF that is the case, which I doubt, then a whole lot of people read the thing the wrong way.
Just more proof the fix is in.
According to lawyers, you don’t have to be qualified to be placed on a ballot.
Our legal standards are below whale poop. The law is whatever they want it to be on any given day.
No wonder they place political hacks on the USSC to assure we do NOT let the Constitution get in the way of the ruling elite.
When we see how much lawyers, politicians, judges twist the law how fricken stupid must we be to keep electing more lawyers to be politicians and judges?
I vow to NEVER vote for any lawyer. How many are willing to do at least this little bit to help?
The headline is idiocy. Lawyer said no such thing.
Read the story:
(Obama lawyer) Hill repeatedly explained to Judge Jeff S. Masin that, “We do not believe the president’s birth certificate is relevant to this case.”
Agreeing with Hill, Masin ruled in a written opinion the same day that New Jersey law does not require Obama to produce any proof he is eligible to be president in order to be placed on the primary ballot.
Noting that New Jersey law allows a nominating petition endorsing a particular person for president to be filed without the consent of the person endorsed, Masin said “There is no obligation upon the person endorsed to prove his or her qualification for office.”
This is a totally correct legal ruling. A nomination, filing or election can be challenged AFTER THE FACT, but there is no U.S. constitutional legal requirement for “proof” to be filed before an election can be held.
This is an excellent provision. Can you imagine every Dem county JP in the country ruling Ronald Reagan had not submitted “sufficient” proof of qualification?
Lawyer never said there was no BC. Conservatives should check facts before they believe every stupid internet post.
Yep. I knew the fix was in when Chief Justice John Roberts (A Bush appointee!) swore in Obama (twice).
That is just one of the many reasons why I gave up on the SCOTUS years ago. I don’t give a care who is prez. The courts (even the Supremes) will always be liberal. I don’t see them as ever being pro-conservative.
Maybe I’ll be proven wrong if they overturn even some parts of Obama Care. But I don’t even see THAT happening..
The article states “Adding insult upon injury, Hill went on to contort reasoning further by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.” This is the exact arguement my over educated cousin uses: “He was elected by the people so that makes him eligible.”
It appears they’re admitting it was a fake in case criminal charges are ever filed. They can say “We never intended to mislean anyone. We simply mis-posted.”
“This is just more exaggerated conspiracy blather.”
Heil Hussein!
Because he CARES about EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US!
Anyone who doesn’t agree is just spewing “more exaggerated conspiracy blather”!
Remember to TRUST ABCCBSCNNNBCFOX/AP — for the same reason!
It’s a serious twisting of what you’ll read here:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
She stipulated that the internet image of the BC could not be used as evidence.
They stipulated that the Court was unable to rely upon the veracity of the electronic BC image, so that they wouldn’t have to withstand scrutiny of the image by an expert witness.
This story is a giant, steaming pile of dung. Obama's lawyer did not say the birth certificate is fake. The headline of this thread is absolute and complete nonsense. I expect to see trash like this on InfoWars, but am very disappointed this sort of thing shows up on a respectable website like FR. This is just exaggerated conspiracy mongering. Period.
A birth certificate is a standard document for identifying citizenship and a place of birth. It’s why the state department requires them when one applies for a passport. It’s why Obama voted for a law in 2005 that requires real citizens to submit birth certificates when applying for drivers licenses and ID cards. Certified public records, such as a legal birth certificates, are considered to be self-authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence. If Obama is claiming to be Constitutionally eligible for office as a natural-born citizen ... as would be required to get on the New Jersey ballot, then a birth certificate should be a no-brainer document to provide in court in order to prove the claim. The fact that the lawyer went to great lengths to avoid having this alleged document scrutinized in court is indeed a tacit admission that is legally insufficient.
forgery or not an image on the internet cannot be used as evidence.
[[They stipulated that the Court was unable to rely upon the veracity of the electronic BC image, so that they wouldn’t have to withstand scrutiny of the image by an expert witness.]]
so if I’m understasnding you right- the court discussion whent somethign liek so?
Lawyer: Judge, since you the court can’t verify the authenticity of the electronic photo of the BC, then there’s no need to put hte evidence efore experts who might coudl teell it’s a fake, right?
Judge: Good point- Nope- there’ll be no expert scrutiny to see if the obama administration faked the BC
Does that abuot sum it up?
IF the BC was ligit, Why did the lawyer weasel her way around the law by arguing such assinine arguments? (which fortunately for her, the judge bought hook line and sinker for fear of losing his job apparently)
President Obama’s birth certificate “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,” the Tea Party Tribune quoted Hill as saying.It's hearsay until I see an actual court transcript. But if the quote is accurate, that sounds to me like an assumption of forgery.
Your “more” in front of “exaggerated conspiracy blather” led me to believe that you were defending the Fraud’s birth certificate, rather than just calling our attention to the article’s erroneous title.
BS. Some writer may quote her as saying it, but it’s bull. Obama and the DNC have very good lawyers on this, and there is absolutely no other record of her saying this.
It’s BS.
Some writer may quote her as saying it, but it’s bull. Obama and the DNC have very good lawyers on this, and there is absolutely no other record of her saying this.
[[The fact that the lawyer went to great lengths to avoid having this alleged document scrutinized in court is indeed a tacit admission that is legally insufficient.]]
I fully agree with you- however your last statement is an assumption, not a fact that would hold up in court I don’t beleive- I agree the lawyer wentto great lengths to avoid havign hte document scrutinized- and htere almost certainly was a definate reason why she did- however provign why is what the right would have to prove ion court to get a conviction- or whetever-
The Judge shoudl have demanded that hte defense GET the original birth cirtificate and present it to him imediately! instead, thsi judge was apaprently too afraid of losing their job and didn’t require the actual document in question be presented for expert scrutiny-
Antoher travfesty of justice because noone dares stand up against a media supported black man in office-
AINT'T happening. So...my opinion has always been: Yes...he probably is ineligible...but given the above...and given I still only have 24 hours in the day and a MSM that will protect him...what is the most efficient use of time, energy and money?
And it certainly isn't the birther issue. The MSM has already sufficiently made that issue "a grassy knoll conspiracy"...regardless of the facts. Hats off to them...they did their work. But he's got a record and no amount of polishing that t*rd can turn it into gold...because people are living it.
At this point in the game, the birth certificate will NOT get him out before Jan 20th, 2013. All it will do is distract from his record...the recovery, Obamacare, executive orders, trashing the constitution...etc. And that is a gauranteed winner.
And she is totally legally correct.
By my lights, more like this:
Lawyer: “We want to call an expert witness to impeach the image of the birth certificate as forged.”
Opposing Counsel: “We object to the expert witness.”
Lawyer: “Okay, maybe we don’t need an expert witness to impeach the image, if you will stipulate that the Court cannot rely on the image as evidence.”
Opposing Counsel: “Yes, we will so stipulate, but we don’t need to show no steenking birth certificate anyway.”
You’re absolutely correct. Three plus years into his reign, and NO ONE has stood up in congress and even raised the question. Joe Smith R-SC called him a “liar”, which everyone knew to be true, and he was censured. Every court runs away from the issue as fast as they can. I don’t think there isn’t a clause in The Constitution that the 0bama regime hasn’t violated, and I’m beginning to wonder if Barry will go quietly if he is unsuccessful in stealing the election in November.
FWIW, the SC Rep that had the cojones to call ovomit a liar is named Joe Wilson.
YES! thanks - I knew he was an [above] average “Joe”.
If you follow the link to the Tea Party Tribune article, you'll see that it doesn't quote Hill as saying those things. That statement is part of the TPT's intro to their story, so it's their (mis?)interpretation of something the lawyer said. Why your source chose to claim it's a quote, I don't know.
bflr
It strikes me that the point of this legal dance was to avoid having that document (fake b.c.) entered into evidence. It’s one thing to post it on the internet. It’s another to offer it as a legal document in a court proceeding. That opens up a whole can of worms. So - again - I really think it’s just about NOT GIVING IT TO A COURT OF LAW.
Read into that what you will, but I think that’s all it is. Just another sleazy tactic, delaying tactic by the Occupier-in-Chief
[[It strikes me that the point of this legal dance was to avoid having that document (fake b.c.) entered into evidence. ]]
Yup- that’s what I feel too
[[It’s one thing to post it on the internet. It’s another to offer it as a legal document in a court proceeding.]]
Why didn’t the judge demand that the actual document be presented? After all, the lawsuit is abotu whether the document is real or not- it would seem to me that the document should have been physically [present in order to determien it’s authenticity
Thanks for the link, it’s nice to have the actual proceedings. However, I’m way out in the country with basically dial-up so can you tell me if this quote from
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ is accurate?
“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.”
Thanks so much for your help!
If I recall that statement is pretty accurate, but it only came AFTER a long discussion the judge had with the lawyer who was wanting to prove it was a fake document. The judge said something to the effect, since it was only an ONLINE picture there was no way for him to make a determination if the ACTUAL hard copy BC was fake. He would have to have a hard copy in hand to make that determination. It was all agreed that an online picture was not real. It went something like that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.