[Reily]

I read a news article.

I don't know if a web site titled “occupycorporatism” has a any more validity then the news article I read. I suspect not.

I am by no means defending its authenticity, I am very aware how lawyers parse their statements, particularly Zero lawyers. So the news article I read was plausible. Something called “occupycorporatism” seems to scream OWS, therefore I am immediately suspicious.

All have an agenda, unless you're there its hard to get the bare basic facts.

[4Zoltan]

This site has the entire hearing on video. It is several hours long.

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/04/13/obama-lawyer-admits-forgery-but-disregards-image-as-indication-of-obamas-ineligibility-damage-control/

IIRC, even the attorney for the plaintiff has said that the Obama lawyer never admitted it was a forgery. I’ll see if I can find the link.

[4Zoltan]

This WND article repeats alot of what was said at the hearing. It doesn’t mention the lawyer admitting it was a forgery.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/obama-lawyer-birth-certificate-irrelevant-to-eligbility/