Skip to comments.Obama Lawyer claims birth certificate is fake
Posted on 04/17/2012 8:34:06 AM PDT by varmintman
All over the internet this morning, this is a link to a google search on 'obama lawyer birth certificate'.
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 presidents 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.”
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.