OBAMA LAWYER ADMITS FORGERY BUT DISREGARDS "IMAGE" AS INDICATION OF OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY
Updated 04/17/12
NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama’s ineligibility in a court of law.
Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, agreed with arguments 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.
During the hearing, Hill's concession was showcased by the following exchange:
Judge Masin asked Hill, “I understand you have a general objection before we get to the question of what is his (Obama’s) qualifications?”
“Yes, I have an objection as to relevance,” replied Hill, as to the plaintiffs’ witness testimony regarding the authenticity of the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 'Certificate of Live Birth'.
Hill then attempted to have the judge declare that Obama was preeminently eligible without any legal responsibility to prove with documentation that he was, in fact, qualified to hold the office of the presidency.
“The objectors carry the burden of proof to show that a candidate is not eligible under New Jersey statutes,” Hill said.
Hill’s misunderstanding of administrative law reveals a strategy to defend Obama’s fraudulent election in which our legal system has reversed the legal assignment of burden of proof in order to equate eligibility with a legal definition of innocence of a crime for Obama.
Unfortunately for Obama, eligibility for political office does not fall under the precepts of criminalogical reasoning of "innocent until proven guilty", unless a charge is made that a crime has been committed, such as forgery or fraud, in order to deceive people about your identity or citizenship status. Obama's ineligibility, by itself, is not a crime...being fraudulently elected by deceiving voters is.
Simply put, Obama does not have a right to hold an office he is not eligible for and, therefore, he is not harmed by a lawful denial of an opportunity to hold the office he is not eligible for. Therefore, must prove he is eligible in order to avoid harming others by his illegitimate election.
Hill incorrectly argued that Obama is automatically eligible until proven ineligible, yet she sought to suppress the very evidence which shows that Obama’s eligibility has never actually been proven to begin with.
In doing so, Hill stated, “Photographs (of Obama’s alleged birth certificate) are not relevant as to the discussion of the law today.”
Then, shockingly, Hill went on to agree with widely publicized suspicions that the image of Obama’s alleged Certificate of Live Birth is, indeed, a fabrication. She conceding that the plaintiffs’ arguments against the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate were valid saying, “I understand that they have great arguments (that the internet image of Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery), but I don’t see how that is relevant in this case.”
Absurdly, Obama’s position, as contorted by Hill, is that his appearance on New Jersey's presidential ballot is not related to his actual eligibility to be president.
At the hearing, attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, correctly argued that Obama, under the Constitution, has to be a “natural born Citizen” and that he has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is indeed a “natural born Citizen.” He argued that Obama has shown no authenticate evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State demonstrating who he is and that he was born in the United States. Apuzzo also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.
As Obama’s legal argument becomes more contorted, he is being forced to survive in an ever shrinking legal space, under an ever increasing weight, of his failure to meet constitutional eligibility requirements.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
