The response to [OBC's letter] to NJ SOS was this:

Obviously I had zero effect, pretty much as expected. My objective was to highlight this injustice to the people.

Update: I called Mr Giles (pronounced jyles) and spoke to him, asking why that decison had been made by Guadagno, in the face of errors of facts and law I had presented to her. He said that she was upholding the judge’s decision and that it wasn’t within her control (or words to that effect) to influence it.

I said, “so basically, she’s rubberstamping the ruling. He said, no, she reviewed the facts of the case and upheld the decision and that it wasn’t within her control to do otherwise. He said he could not speak for her. I asked who could in fact speak for her and he offered no ideas. I pointed out that it was in fact within her control, but she had refused to consider the facts. I pointed out that this would result in expensive litigation for his dept., NJ, plaintiffs and defendants. He was unmoved. Heck, its’s mostly not his money, anyway.

Mr. Giles was courteous and professional at all times in his attempt to convey, if not adequately explain, the unjust decision.

Update: I called Mr Giles (pronounced jyles) and spoke to him, asking why that decison had been made by Guadagno, in the face of errors of facts and law I had presented to her. He said that she was upholding the judge’s decision and that it wasn’t within her control (or words to that effect) to influence it.

I said, “so basically, she’s rubberstamping the ruling. He said, no, she reviewed the facts of the case and upheld the decision and that it wasn’t within her control to do otherwise. He said he could not speak for her. I asked who could in fact speak for her and he offered no ideas. I pointed out that it was in fact within her control, but she had refused to consider the facts. I pointed out that this would result in expensive litigation for his dept., NJ, plaintiffs and defendants. He was unmoved. Heck, its’s mostly not his money, anyway.

Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.

Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.


[...]

Shockingly, parting from widespread public ignorance, Hill actually acknowledged two of the three necessary components of determining natural born citizenship as being place of birth and citizenship status of both parents. However, she argued that, “No law in New Jersey obligated him (Obama) to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.”

[...]

[Daily Pen editor, Penbrook Johannson, said,] “However, Hill is also essentially admitting that Obama is not a legitimate president and that Obama believes that his illegitimacy does not matter to his legal ability to hold the office. Obama holds to a political tenet, not a legal one with respect to his views on his eligibility. That’s what corrupt, criminal politicians do. When the law convicts them, they run to public favorability for shelter with the hope that their supporters will apply pressure to disregard law in their case.”

I really hate all these evil fucking liars.

+1

I really hate all these evil fucking liars.

Before It's News: Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery But Disregards "image" As Indication Of Obama’s Ineligibility

Before It's News: Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery But Disregards "image" As Indication Of Obama’s Ineligibility

I mean, you can't take your computer with you to the store, show the clerk an image of a $20 bill on the screen and have that accepted as payment for your groceries, eh?

Well, if THAT isn't a huge pile of bullshit. There's a big difference between "admitting" something is a forgery and agreeing that an image of a document is not an official document and cannot be substituted as such. It's not that hard to comprehend, really. I mean, you can't take your computer with you to the store, show the clerk an image of a $20 bill on the screen and have that accepted as payment for your groceries, eh?

I haven't been able to listen to the videos, but in all of the recaps and comments I've read on them so far I don't recall anyone indicating that she said anything that could be construed as agreeing with the 2-parent nonsense.

Before It's News: Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery But Disregards "image" As Indication Of Obama’s Ineligibility

ORYR has reprinted this story but he must know it's BS because he turned the headline into a question.
Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery But Disregards Image As Indication of Obama's Ineligibility?

Moderator said...[Reply]

UPDATE: After re-watching the 3+ hour hearing there is no admission that the birth certificate is a forgery by Obama's paid lackey. Where Dan Crosby heard that who knows. You will have to follow the link and ask him. Aside from this one sentence, "Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery", the rest of the opinion piece is spot-on.

...
Upon my request that she so stipulate, Obama’s lawyer agreed during the trial that there was absoulutely no evidence before the court as to who Obama is or where he was born, including excluding from evidence the internet image of Obama’s alleged Certificate of Live Birth he released on April 27, 2011. The ALJ confirmed that to be the case.

Yet, in his decision, the ALJ said that it did not matter who Obama is or where he may be born because he has no legal obligation to show that he is constitutionally eligible to run in the New Jersey primary for the Office of President.

Not only did he say that Obama has no legal duty to provide the State of New Jersey with any evidence that he is constitutionally eligible to be placed on the New Jersey primary ballot for election to the Office of President, the ALJ also said: “Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” Initial Decision, p. 7. Dr. Conspiracy, in light of the fact that there was absolutely no evidence before the ALJ as to where Obama was born, must be so embarrassed by the finding of the court that he tries to tell us that it is not true that the ALJ found Obama to be born in Hawaii. But on the contrary, from the quoted language, we can conclude that the ALJ found that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore based on that fact alone and with no reference to the citizenship of his parents, found that he is a “natural born Citizen.” But he made he finding that he was born in Hawaii without providing any explanation as to what evidence he relied upon to make such a finding. His Initial Decision is silent as to what evidence he relied upon to find that Obama was born in Hawaii. Also, the ALJ relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to rule that Obama, born to an alien father, is a “natural born Citizen.”

On April 12, 2012, Secretary of State, Kimberly M. Guadagno, issued her Final Decision in Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran v. Barack Obama New Jersey Primary Ballot Objection. A copy of her decision may be read here, http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/89431332- ... on-4-12-12 . She concludes without any explanation: “After full consideration of the record and a review of the exceptions filed, I hereby adopt the ALJ’s Initial Decision in its entirety.”

The next step is an appeal directly to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Divison.

She concludes without any explanation: “After full consideration of the record and a review of the exceptions filed, I hereby adopt the ALJ’s Initial Decision in its entirety.”

I'm sorry, but "accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii" is not the same as making a "finding" that he was born in Hawaii.

ALJ Masin "accepted" that Obama was born in Hawaii to rule that he is a "natural born Citizen." If he was not sure as to where he was born, he would have told us that he was assuming where Obama was born for the sake of argument. He did not tell us that his was only an assumption. Rather, he said that he accepted that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Furthermore, your point is a bit absurd given that the American public has been told for the last 4 years that Obama was born in Hawaii. Are you telling us that we do not know where Obama was born? Are you telling us that there was no evidence before the court for the ALJ to find that Obama was born in Hawaii? What, now a court of law in which that exact issue is challenged, can only assume that he was born in Hawaii? According to the ALJ, birth in the U.S. is a constituent element of being a "natural born Citizen" and he surely cannot assume anything in concluding that someone is or is not a "natural born Citizen" which, along with age and residency, makes that person eligible to be elected President and Commander in Chief of the Military and therefore also eligible to be placed on the New Jersey state ballot used for election to that office.