Obama's Lawyers Admit Birth Certificate is Fake!25/04/2012 22:05
Obama Lawyers Want the Video of the NJ Obama Ballot Access Challenge Public Hearing Pulled and Suppressed
I heard this morning that the Obama lawyers are trying to suppress the videos of the NJ Obama Ballot Access Challenge public hearing. I just spoke with Attorney Mario Apuzzo and he confirmed that Obama’s lawyers have called him and told him they are planning to take legal action to get the videos of the NJ Ballot Access Challenge Public Hearing pulled and suppressed. What is the Obama side ashamed of and doesn’t want the world to see. Could it be that their Obama “emperor has no clothing on”, i.e., has no known conclusively proven true legal identity clothing/papers to show the world which Attorney Mario Apuzzo forced them to admit to and stipulate to in the NJ public hearing? Obama’s side obviously does not want people to see this video. Watch it yourself at the below links and learn why. The Obama side even wants to allow Mickey Mouse to run for President. To Obama and his lawyers the U.S. Constitution and presidential eligibility clause in Article II is a joke. You can see that in Part II at about 40 minutes into that segment. It was interesting that Obama’s lawyer chose and mentioned Mickey Mouse running for President and making a mockery of the election process in her statements in the hearing as Mickey Mouse was a contributor to Obama’s campaign in 2008 as part of the untraceable debit and credit card contributions that Obama accepted online, a good chunk of it alleged to have been illegally provided to Obama operatives from foreign sources.
Full Video of the NJ Obama Ballot Access Challenge Public Hearing. Obama’s attorney did not wish the proceedings video taped. It has been learned from sources who recorded these videos with the court’s permission under NJ law that Obama’s lawyer did not want the hearing video taped and she tried before the start of the public hearing to get the cameras removed. However under NJ state law, video taping of public hearings is permitted. Now the Obama legal team wants to suppress these videos. See this channel link for the videos of this public hearing and/or via the other embedded links below: http://www.youtube.com/haggz51
By Daniel Noe
A judge in New Jersey just ruled yesterday afternoon against two concerned citizens who questioned Obama’s eligibility to be on their state’s presidential primary ballot. Essentially, Obama was cleared to be put on the ballot.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo, arguing for plaintiffs Nick Purpura and Ted Moran argued that Obama should not be on the ballot and that the NJ Secretary of State is obligated to make sure that only qualified candidates appear on future ballots.
Last week, Mr. Purpura, accompanied by Mr. Apuzzo, filed an objection to the nominating petition of Obama to appear on the state’s primary election ballot.
Obama was represented by attorney Alexandra Hill of the firm of Genova, Burn, and Giantomasi of Newark. The name of the Administrative Law Judge who heard the case was Judge Jeff Masin.
While Mr. Apuzzo clearly argued how Obama’s birth certificate was clearly inauthentic, Ms. Hill struggled to dismiss the suit as irrelevant. Although she conceded that Obama has not furnished a birth certificate to the appropriate parties in the state, she nevertheless said that he is under no obligation to do so. Unfortunately, this is true, not just of New Jersey but of all fifty states.
Judge Masin asked a lot of questions about the eligibility issue, repeatedly interrupting Mr. Apuzzo’s presentation. He refused to hear anything about the issue of Obama’s forged documents and did not allow any evidence to be entered into the court’s official record since Obama had not presented his birth certificate or draft registration documents in any form.
What was most interesting was that despite no record of Obama being born in Hawaii was entered into the court’s official record, Masin ruled that Obama was born there anyway.
The plaintiffs and Mr. Apuzzo vowed to appeal.
Below is the PDF of Judge Masin’s decision.
UPDATE: Here is the response of Mr. Apuzzo and the plaintiffs to the ruling: