A bombshell: a lawyer tells the truth! That no lawyer for Obama hasn't articulated what everyone already knows is meaningful only to birthers.

But, again, the White House's possession of a functioning TARDIS could be highly significant.

I note that some of the birthers on Freep have already started the standard meme of declaring this a victory because it forces the cases into the state courts, where on eventual appeal SCOTUS will be "forced" to finally rule on the two-parent theory.

I'm not sure birthers have ever really grasped the concept of discretionary appellate jurisdiction. The SCOTUS is not going to take the case unless for some insane reason one of the Courts of Appeal ruled the President ineligible.

ORYR comments:

More ORYR comments:

Here's a link to a story about the sesion;

Looks like Hill is a first year associate. Should be good fro Mario's ego. It is amazing that he keeps making the same type of stupid arguments like the Secretary of State has some duty to investigate Obama when no such legal duty exists in the Constitution, statute or case law. He made the same type of assertions with Congress in his last case. He also tries to claim Obama has the burden of proof when again no law imposes such burden. Apparently, he thinks that if he keeps asserting Obama has to prove his eligiblity over and over, such will substitute for legal authority. He throws in all the stupid due process, freedom of association, voting rights crap that has no legal auithority to support it. At some point, some judge is going to throw the book at him for this crap.

And, of course, even Georgia wouldn't have ever reached that point if Obama's counsel had simply filed a Motion for Summary Determination on the facts of the case.



Some Birthers like to act like their primary interest is in ballot integrity, not about Obama specifically, but their actions aren't consistent with this. If they wanted to make a point about Presidential ballots being susceptible to ineligible candidates, and that no one has any authority to remove them, then it'd be simple to demonstrate this: just pick some states with low bars for ballot access, and run a plainly ineligible candidate for President. Say...Justin Bieber. If a state (or multiple states) put Bieber on the ballot, then at least they'd have a decent illustration of a flaw in the system. (Even better, if after getting him registered as a candidate, an orchestrated challenge to remove him fails.)

Of course, they're not going to try this. If they were *really* interested about protecting the ballot, they'd be focusing on Roger Calero. But he's lucky to get a footnote in their arguments.

Or Peta Lindsay.

Birthers repeatedly say it is about the Constitution (and not Obama). But the combination of a lack of opposition to any other candidate (Romney didn't give the SoSoNJ a birth certificate either, Apuzzo!) and the vehement hatred for all things Obama demonstrate it is, in fact, all about Obama.

Alexandra M. Hill of Genova Burns:

So, how did NJ confirm BO's edibility? Does he have to go around and give every SoS a little bite to get on the ballot?

One of the glaring, screaming defects in Apuzzo's attempts at arguments is the insistence that Obama has to present an authentic, original certified document showing edibility and they never mention that other candidates have or should have done the same in the past. It's as if they have imagined a law that applies only to one person and also imagine that it would be considered just or legal.

Loren wrote:

I was doing a search on Gloria LaRiva last week and ran across some history about past presidential and vice-presidental candidates who were widely known not to be 35 years old or NBC's. Calero was just one. Some of them did get on ballots in multiple states and got a handful of votes. Sometimes they were placeholders and sometimes they were there just to keep the party alive and with enough votes to qualify as a state-recognized party. Sometimes they were removed. Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver is the case most often mentioned in California challenges. The current challenge by LaRiva's group for not allowing Peta Lindsey on the ballot turns on the duty of the SoS to put someone on or keep someone off the ballot. Are there any states where someone who admits to being underage or not a citizen could force the SoS to put him/her on the ballot for president or any other office? If they did, would there be any chance of them winning since the voters (or most of them) would know the person is not eligible? (There is a gray area here I do not understand.)

When states open the election process up so that any voter can come in with unsubstantiated claims and challenge the eligibility of any candidate they don't like, they are asking for a flood of challenges that will gum up the works. Alabama learned that lesson. Legislatures considering legislature on requiring all kinds of proof and letting anyone or any voter challenge in court are asking for T-R-O-U-B-L-E and need to look at the history of those states that did away with those laws. Is it better to put any kook candidate on the ballot (Taitz being a good example) without showing his/her papers and let the voters vet them or to have the courts jammed up with kooks' challenges?

This is true, any birther truly caring about "verifying eligibility" and the Constitution would ask not just what documentation President Obama has provided, but what Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum provided as well (the answer likely being none). That after all was half his argument - the other half being Vattel.

Of course anyone thinking that this "Isn't just about Obama" could just read the Freep thread of a few weeks ago where a small number of birthers commented that they hadn't seen Mitt Romney's or Rick Santorum's birth certificates or college records - documents supposedly essential for them to judge any candidate - and were shouted down hard by the majority of the Freeper birther crowd as nearly treasonous - how dare they ask to see private and confidential college records! It got so heated Jim Robinson had to come in and declare that the Republican candidates don't have to show anything, and anyone making birther overtures about Republicans would be summarily zotted.

Not about Obama indeed.

In the 2009-2011 timeframe birthers would often cover themselves against this by saying that they thought it was ALWAYS part of any nomination process, and it wasn't until President Obama's "fraud" that they learned that no such thing takes place. However, that doesn't explain the fact that they seem completely uninterested in asking any other 2012 candidates to follow this step they claim is required.

I just read Apuzzo's appeal. God, my head hurts...What Apuzzo is really saying, once you edit out the guff, is "you ruled against me and I don't like it, so here once again are all the reasons that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen". This is all irrelevant horseshit. Part of the ruling from the ALJ, as I understand it, is that Obama does not have to demonstrate constitutional eligibility to get on the Democratic primary ballot in New Jersey. Apuzzo's hand waving about natural born citizenship is therefore irrelevant. His appeal is going to fail unless he can show where the ALJ erred in following or interpreting New Jersey state law. "Your decision is wrong because he is not a natural born citizen" is not going to cut it, it fails to answer the question "where did the ALJ err?". This is Lawyering 101.
To use an analogy, what Apuzzo is doing is the equivalent of trying to win an appeal against the denial of a building permit by claiming that the Uniform Building Code is unconstitutional.
I also note that Apuzzo, in the second page of the appeal, persists in perpetuating the fiction that this was a trial. It was not, it was an Administrative Law Hearing. Birthers seem to do this all the time. They appear to have the recurrent wet dream of the case being decided in their favor, and the sheriff being dispatched to DC to bring The Usurper back in handcuffs for his comeuppance.

So Apuzzo wanted the judge and the SOS to concede that any birth certificate published on the Internet would not be considered an official document.

He wanted them to state that an electronic image of something would not be treated as official.

"Can we have a clear stipulation that that internet birth certificate is in no way evidence in any way, shape or form."

Judge and Obama attorney: Sure.

And Mario thinks he's scored a point.

Out. Standing.

The only comment I would have about the highly intelligent young woman representing the Obama Campaign is to always stand when you address the court. I know the ALJ said it wasn't necessary, but I have always found it a good practice that shows respect to the court. But hey, what do I know?

Comment from ORYR:




Sure you will bro, sure you will.

I know it's just been the time of Easter chocolate bunnies, but beware:
Everyone check their Soros Emergency Kit and follow instructions on how to handle the zombies

Finally, a birther I can agree with.

Apuzzo seemed unnerved by the appearance of highly-intelligent but very green young lady lawyer. She did what she was there to do and spoke clearly and concisely. Apuzzo just could not understand the question the judge was asking him over and over and over. I thought the judge was going to lose it when he started talking about the coffee mugs. He forgot to mention the t-shirts.

This must have been the first time I saw Mario's performance on a hearing video. I was actually surprised he wasn't more articulate.

I read this kind of thing all of the time from authoritarians. It's always the same petulant foot-stamping "if xxx happens I am going to leave the USA". My question is always the same one: If you're an unpleasant authoritarian chickenshit, where are you going to move to? Which country is going to accept you? Belarus? Kazahkstan? North Korea?

I didn't even see the actual ruling yet. Did I miss it?


Purpura-Moran Exceptions to Initial Decision 4-10-12

http://www.scribd.com/doc/88812721/Purp ... on-4-10-12

I was wondering this myself. When some left-leaning people said this about George Bush's re-election, while I figured it was just as much bluster as this guy is, at least there's places for them to go - Canada, the UK, France, what have you. Someone who is left-leaning politically will probably be comfortable with the politics of those nations and be able to find a standard of living close to that they found here.

But when you have someone on the far edges of the right that says "That's it, I'm outta here," where would they go? That is, if they're already pissed off with the "socialism" and "OMG super mega high taxes" and "not enough defense spending" and "keep government out of my Medicare" and "OMG the government doesn't condemn gays enough" of the United States, there's not many places out there for them to go that can offer them that while still maintaining the standard of living they are getting here. It just doesn't exist.

There are many countries on the African continent where homosexuality is - if not outlawed - not tolerated.

They could go there.

Am I the only one who didn't see the ruling? I found the appeal, but never saw the ruling.

Can somebody help a girl out?


EDIT: I found the ruling. Link is in my next post.