Posted on 04/10/2012 5:19:45 PM PDT by jdirt
Mario Apuzzo argued for 3 and a half hours today to knock President Obama off the NJ primary ballot. Obama's attorney argued Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Ankeny. Apuzzo has been spring loaded for this argument for years and Obama's attorney's argument was no match for Apuzzo. He destroyed Obama's attorney!!
The Judge will write an opinion and publish it tomorrow morning.
No matter what the outcome, appeals will be filed. Wouldn't it be great if the US Supreme Court had to take the case because the NJ Supreme Court rules in our favor....
Check out Mario's account of the proceeding today at his website. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Any info on the judge?
I wish you well................
Yay birfers! This will save us all!
No info on the Judge. I don’t think anyone would be wanting to analyze the Judge before the ruling. But he did interrupt Apuzzo repeatedly asking him questions. He seemed to perk up when Apuzzo pointed out that Obama’s daddy was never a permanent resident unlike Wong Kim Ark’s parents who were permanent legal residents. So Apuzzo really knocked him out !!!
No info on the Judge. I don’t think anyone would be wanting to analyze the Judge before the ruling. But he did interrupt Apuzzo repeatedly asking him questions. He seemed to perk up when Apuzzo pointed out that Obama’s daddy was never a permanent resident unlike Wong Kim Ark’s parents who were permanent legal residents. So Apuzzo really knocked him out !!!
OML! excellent!
If it was ultimately ruled that 0bama was ineligible for the primary ballot, what would his standing be in the general in NJ? When is the NJ primary?
the NJ primary is June 5th.
if Obama was off the primary ballot, i believe he would be off the general as well. but more stupid things have happened.
this would be ruled on by the US Supreme Ct before that would happen and the US Supreme ct will only hear it if the ruling is in
Mario’s favor. In other words if Mario loses, the Supreme ct wont hear it. But if Mario wins, the. Supreme Ct will be forced to hear it. imo
Most likely you are correct, unless they are still mad about Obama calling them unelected justices.
“The Judge will write an opinion and publish it tomorrow morning”
The judge will throw it out tomorrow morning just like the Judge here in Atlanta did. No lower court judge is going to take a chance that the SCOTUS won’t take.
Breaking: Obama Eligibility: NJ ALJ Ducks Issues
http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/04/10/breaking-obama-eligibility-nj-alj-ducks-issues/
JUDGE RULES FOR OBAMA AFTER ADMITTING THAT NO EVIDENCE EXISTS OF A U.S. BIRTH by Terry Hurlbut, reporting at ConservativeNewsandViews, ©2012 (Apr. 11, 2012) — In the latest Obama eligibility challenge, an Administrative Law Judge cleared Obama for the New Jersey Democratic Primary today. The two men who objected to Obama’s nominating petition vowed to...
Obama eligibility: NJ ALJ ducks issues
SNIP
But the judge shocked Apuzzo when, at about 7:30 p.m., he called Apuzzo to tell him that the Obama campaign had prevailed on both points. Said the judge, according to Apuzzo:
“As far as I’m concerned, Obama was born in Hawaii.”
Apuzzo could not explain how Judge Masin could rule that way, after observing in open court that neither Obama nor his surrogates had shown that he was born in Hawaii.
Within two hours, according to a deadline that Masin gave him, Apuzzo filed an exception to Masin’s ruling. Apuzzo took exception to the following:
Judge Masin ruled that Obama was born in Hawaii with no evidence on record, after acknowledging that fact during the hearing.
Judge Masin ruled that Obama need not comply with statute to show that he is eligible, solely because he need not “consent” to someone circulating a nominating petition for him.
The judge suggested that Obama might have to show eligibility later. He laid no basis for such a ruling.
The judge misread the precedents and gave short shrift to the historical evidence that the Framers of the Constitution defined “natural-born citizen” as one born in-country to two citizen parents. Apuzzo devoted half of his 30-page exception to this analysis alone.
Apuzzo plans to appeal directly to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. He earlier told CNAV that he was ready to argue before the State and even United States Supreme Courts if he had to.
I wouldn't count on that. The NJ Supreme Court is corrupt.
Refer to the Torricelli case for unassailable proof.
Mario didn’t present his evidence of forgery:
“I called Brian Wilcox to testify as an internet image expert. Mr. Wilcox was going to testify on how the Obama April 27, 2011, long-form birth certificate has been altered and manipulated either by computer software or by a human or both, producing a forged documents, and that since the image is not reliable, we need to see the original paper version. 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.”
Sorry the Judge ruled Obama was Born In Hawaii
The Law is what those in power says it is.
George Orwell explained this clearly in his book "Animal Farm."
" Some animals are more equal than others."
Actually, he didn’t rule that he was born in Hawaii. He said there were two issues raised. The first had to do with the candidate proving proof to the SoS about his qualifications. The second issue is the two citizen parent theory.
As to the first, the judge ruled that President Obama did not provide any proof of eligibility and that New Jersey law did not require him too.
And for the second issue, the judge would assume that he was born in Hawaii for the purpose of the discussion and that the citizenship of his father was immaterial to whether he was a natural born Citizen.
Footnote 2 is the killer:
2. The Wong Kim Ark decision was preceded by Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167, 22L.Ed. 627 (1874), where the Supreme Court stated that while the Constitution did not say “in words” “who shall be natural-born citizens” there were “some authorities” who held that “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were citizens. The Court concludes that it was not necessary to decide that issue in Minor. Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of who is “natural-born” although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate and the unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office. Nevertheless, the Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes very far in defining the term and its meaning in this country. And the decision does not suggest that the common law rule identified therein only applied at the state level and not on a national basis, as counsel here claims.
I hate these legal nit pickers. It is an axiomatic necessity to verify the credentials of any candidate running for office, and ought not need specific coding in statute. Only a legal @sshole would assume this is a valid argument.
I would further offer the argument that if "New Jersey law did not require him to" verify credentials, then a 10 year old boy could run for President, and nobody would be able to challenge his credentials.
“I would further offer the argument that if “New Jersey law did not require him to” verify credentials, then a 10 year old boy could run for President, and nobody would be able to challenge his credentials.”
That would be an interesting approach. The challenged candidate could argue that a SoS has no authority to remove him from the ballot. The SoS would probably argue that they have no authority to investigate a candidate but if one is clearly ineligible (Eldridge Cleaver or the guy in New Hampshire) they could than make a decision.
In the case of New Jersey apparently every candidate except President has to provide proof of qualifications.
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.