Posted on 04/12/2012 12:51:59 AM PDT by SaveOurRepublicFromTyranny
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 appeal.....
.....But the judge shocked Apuzzo when, at about 7:30 p.m.(4/10/12), 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
That's easy. He's crooked.
It’s more political cowardice, we are being held hostage by threats of violence if the laws are upheld and The Constitution prevails.
Would be nice if judges had to explain themselves.
As I’ve said before........it’s obvious we have the best judges money can by.
As long as the usurper stays up there, NO ONE will address this issue - they are either on his side or are too chicken to do anything, and, the judges don’t have to explain their ‘ruling’!
The only way is to VOTE OBOZO OUT’! When he is out of power they will be less fearful and just might do something to prosecute the usurper/criminal barry/soebarkah/soetoro/bounnel/whatever.
You want justice? Vote him out! You don’t want obozocare, vote him out. You don’t want his czars and union thugs and gangster gov? Vote him out. You don’t want your hard-earned money to be given to the terrorists to kill you? Vote him out. You want to be energy-independent? Vote him out...........Convince everyone you know to vote him out!
It does not look like we can keep his name off the ballots, so VOTE HIM OUT!
The judge did explain himself, by implication. He showed that he could not read and understand a Supreme Court case, insisting that because Justice Gray, who wrote the decision, spent so much time writing about English common law, that we must have accepted English common law. He refused to acknowledge that Wong Kim Ark was made a citizen, and not a natural born citizen, and cited the idiotic Ankeny decision and the Malihi decision, which cited Ankeny, to support his position. The judge put Apuzzo in a corner, from which Apuzzo might have been a bit more aggressive, wanting admission that one hundred judges had not recognized the Marshall, Waite, Bingham, Hughes definition of natural born citizen. The few judges who actually reached an opinion were the blatently political Ankeny and the Muslim, Malihi, whom Maslin said he knew personally.
The Obama council was even worse, citing Perkins v. Elg as an example of someone having foreign-born parents who was deemed a natural born citizen. If she knew better, she knew that the judge wouldn’t understand the case, and not challenge her. Perkins v. Elg was an application of the Minor v. Happersett precedent, "born in a country, to parents who were its citizens." The truth is that Marie Elg was born in New York to parents who had naturalized before her birth. Marie was thus a natural born citizen. The real significance was that having be born a citizen by nature, and not statute, that citizenship could never be denied her, even though her parents repudiated their citizenship and took little Marie back to Sweden from whence they immigrated, and raised her in Sweden. She was still natural born, and could, as affirmed by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, return to the US and, after 14 years residence and attaining the age of 35 years, run for the presidency.
We won't know if these judges are simply ignorant, or crooked, but his behavior should be remembered in case we the people succeed in reinstating the primacy of The Constitution as the foundation for our laws. Ignorance is no excuse.
Yeah, this is like me saying, I thought my pair of 2s beat your aces full and then I grab the pot.
That’s two judges now that have began with some fortitude only to sway at the last minute and with no real legally valid reason to do so.
Not from what I read here, I dislike Mitt but I will vote for him. He will not be as bad as Obama, I don’t think he wants to destroy our way of life.
In other words, the “judge” reached his decision based upon no acceptable or solid evidence of any kind.
A bit unusual, to say the least.
America, meanwhile, continues to be held hostage by the Moslem foreigner, elected to the highest office in the land in contravention of both common sense and constitutional strictures.
I found two interesting things about this New Jersey Obama eligibility court case:
1. PRIVATE LAWYER: It looks like a private lawyer and not a government lawyer defended Obama in this case.
2. STIPULATION: Obama’s lawyer stipulated that the long form birth certificate on the White House site would not be used by the lawyer and the judge as evidence. (I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not sure how the term “stipulation” is used in court. So if someone could help me wth the term “stipulation”, I would appreciate it.)
PRIVATE LAWYER: I found the use of a private lawyer interesting for this reason: I remember how Obama supporters argue that anyone who claims that Obama is paying lawyers a million dollars to defend him in these type of cases is crazy, because most of Obama’s defense is being conducted by government lawyers, and evern if Obama uses private lawyers, the cost is very low.
1. To me, if private lawyers are defending Obama in all these ballot challenges, then I would think that the cost is NOT low. Rather, I would think that it cost a lot of money to hire high-priced lawyers to defend Obama against the many eligibility challenges.
2. I wonder who is paying the bills of these high-priced lawyers? Obama? The Democratic Party? Are the lawyers working pro-bono, that is, for free?
3. Of course, Obama could stop all these eligibility challenges and avoid having to pay all these high-priced lawyers by doing some simple things tomorrow:
a. SELECTIVE SERVICE FORM: He could release his original Selective Service form.
b. LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE: He could tell Hawaii officials to allow Arizona officials to examine his original 1961 long form birth certificate in the Hawaii archives.
c. 1970s SOCIAL SECURITY APPLICATION: He could allow Arizona officials to examine a copy of his Social Security application. ( NOTE: Anyone, especially the President of the United States, can obtain a copy of his own original application form by requesting one from Social Security and paying a small fee.)
4. Of course, Obama and/or the Democratic Party would rather pay thousands of dollars to private lawyers instead of voluntarily releasing the documents above. Why is that? Could it be that Obama is trying to hide something?
STIPULATION regarding Obama’s long form birth certificate seen on the White House website
1. In this New Jersey case, I found it remarkable that Obama’s private lawyer would STIPULATE that the long form birth certificate would NOT be used to prove Obama’s eligibility, which meant that Obama’s private lawyer would present NO evidence that Obama was eligible. (I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not quite sure what “STIPULATION” means in a court of law. So I would appreciate it if someone could explain the term in easy to understand language.)
2. I found the stipulation remarkable for this reason: I would think that now Obama ballot challengers could cite the stipulation in this New Jersey case to force Obama’s lawyers in other eligibility cases to also stipulate that Obama’s long form birth certificate as seen on the White House website would not be introduced as proof that Obama was born in the United States.
3. Again, this stipulation by Obama’s lawyer in this New Jersey court case seems to give persons some new-found ammunition that they can use in future Obama ballot challenges, because Obama’s lawyer has opened the eligibility gate by going on the record in a court of law that Obama’s long form birth certificate need not be introduced as proof that Obama was born in the United States.
4. And if Obama’s long form birth certificate as seen on the White House site will not be introduced as evidence in future court cases to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, then what other evidence can Obama’s private lawyers and sitting judges point to in court to prove that Obama was indeed born in the United States? I can’t think of any other evidence that Obama could present in court that he was born in Hawaii. Can you? Thanks.
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.