Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

I don't see this anywhere on FR as of now, mods should remove this post if I've simply missed it somehow.
1 posted on 04/17/2012 8:34:19 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: varmintman
She is legal counsel representing Obama’s re-election campaign, and argued then that New Jersey law does not require Obama to present a valid birth certificate to establish his qualifications under Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be on the New Jersey Democratic Party primary ballot.

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?

2 posted on 04/17/2012 8:43:53 AM PDT by Kenton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman

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.


3 posted on 04/17/2012 8:45:22 AM PDT by TheThirdRuffian (I will never vote for Romney. Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman

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.


5 posted on 04/17/2012 8:49:19 AM PDT by Proud2BeRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman
She is legal counsel representing Obama’s re-election campaign, and argued then that New Jersey law does not require Obama to present a valid birth certificate to establish his qualifications under Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be on the New Jersey Democratic Party primary ballot.

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.

7 posted on 04/17/2012 8:52:41 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Unlike Mrs Obama,I've Been Proud Of This Country My *Entire* Life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman
According to TeaPartyTribune.com, attorney Alexandra Hill, of the Newark-based law firm Genova, Burn and Giantomasi, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. She concluded her analysis of the online birth certificate arguing that it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.
 
more....
 
 
 
 

Look. I'm a proud birther. But I've come to accept that Barry Soetero himself could claim he forged the BC. He could admit to being born in Kenya, he could admit that he is NOT eligible to serve as POTUS, but so what?
 
He could say all this and more. And give the USA the finger and say: "What are ya gonna do about it"?
 
And the MSM, the SCOTUS and the leftists would all say; "NOTHING!! We love you Barack. We knew all this all along, and we didn't care then. And we don't care now."


8 posted on 04/17/2012 8:52:47 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman
She is legal counsel representing Obama’s re-election campaign, and argued then that New Jersey law does not require Obama to present a valid birth certificate to establish his qualifications under Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to be on the New Jersey Democratic Party primary ballot.

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.

9 posted on 04/17/2012 8:52:54 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Unlike Mrs Obama,I've Been Proud Of This Country My *Entire* Life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman
Might not be the case, see comments here
11 posted on 04/17/2012 8:56:09 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman

LOL, this nonsense again.

This is just more exaggerated conspiracy blather.


12 posted on 04/17/2012 8:57:25 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman
I don't see this anywhere on FR

There is a good reason. Its crap.

13 posted on 04/17/2012 8:58:03 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman

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.


14 posted on 04/17/2012 9:03:41 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman

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?


16 posted on 04/17/2012 9:11:14 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman

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.


17 posted on 04/17/2012 9:11:48 AM PDT by MindBender26 (New Army SF and Ranger Slogan: Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord.... but He subcontracts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman
The leftist judges and socialist democrat frauds want to continue to play MAKE BELIEVE with obama’s eligibility fraud. BIRTH CERTIFICATE, SS CARD, DRAFT CARD all as phoney as a three dollar bill. We must take matters into our own hands and politically destroy this crowd come the November elections. Then go after the enablers. Much like the French underground went after the Nazi collaborators after the Nazi occupation of France
19 posted on 04/17/2012 9:17:33 AM PDT by spawn44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman

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.


23 posted on 04/17/2012 9:38:05 AM PDT by Beach333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: varmintman

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.


24 posted on 04/17/2012 9:46:00 AM PDT by Unknowing (Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson