Obama Birth Certificate: New Jersey Judge Blocks Case, Final Decision Rests With Secretary Of State

Red Bank-Shrewsbury Patch:

According to Apuzzo, the attorney representing New Jersey residents Nick Purpura and Ted Moran, Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin ruled against the ballot challenge following a more than three-hour hearing earlier this week. His decision, delivered to Apuzzo via email, was not based on the issues presented in the challenge, namely that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and that a birth certificate released by the White House last April is fraudulent, but rather on a technicality, Apuzzo said.

The judge ruled that Obama's place on the ballot could not be removed by challenge because Obama, as president, automatically appears on the ballot and without his consent. Thus, Obama cannot be held immediately responsible for proving his eligibility. Apuzzo filed an exception and the matter was passed along to New Jersey Secretary of State Kim Guadagno who will have to make the final determination at this stage.

Should Guadagno uphold the court's decision, Apuzzo said he would file an appeal.

"The sham continues. In one way or another it's a sham of justice. Our judiciary is really taking us for a ride," Apuzzo said during a telephone interview Thursday. "How can they expect us to do something that the law doesn't allow for (challenging Obama's place on the ballot)? The logic is unbelievable."

Read the whole story at Red Bank-Shrewsbury Patch

Comments

[mishanti]

12:25 PM on 05/24/2012

These people just never give up the fight even when the courts are constantly ruling against them.

[littlelulu89]

03:56 AM on 05/18/2012

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!!
It eventually will all come out and make Watergate look like a Sunday School Picnic compared to the lies and hypocrisies of this administration who surrounds itself with Marxist and Socialists, who looks to change our traditions, who is rewriting our history and Mr. Obama has the audacity to have injected himself into every Presidential Biography. President Reagan is flipping in his grave with THE GREATEST GENERATION to whom we owe the freedom and liberty we have today. This is history repeating itself ! ! ! Mr. Obama has violated the Constitution that he swore to Uphold, Defend and Protect. Forget the birth issue, it is a mere distraction to keep from exposing this character for his lack of leadership to do the job.
He should be IMPEACHED for his arrogance, audacity, lack of accountability and sense of entitlement and turning our Great Republic into a Third World Nation. We have our FIRST Affirmative Action President, FIRST Gay President, FIRST Hispanic President, First Socialist President, he is all things to all people........what about just AMERICAN PRESIDENT!!!
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/how-has-obama-violated-the-constitution-lets-count-the-ways/

[imagyrene]

09:14 AM on 05/18/2012

I think you missed your calling in life, you should become an author. Just look what J. K. Rowling has done writing fantasy and fiction.

[littlelulu89]

03:48 PM on 05/18/2012

George Orwell said:

" Speaking the Truth in times of UNIVERSAL DECEIT is a Revolutionary Act. "

[mishanti]

11:34 PM on 05/17/2012

Does anyone seriously believe our Supreme Court ( which is made up of over half of non Obama supporters) would allow him to remain in office if there was any real proof he wasn't an American citizen?

[GXV183]

06:19 PM on 05/07/2012

Obama's REAL father not from Kenya!

Check out this new DVD "Dreams from My Real Father". It chronicles Obama's life in socialism, and starts with making the case that Communist Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's biological father!

www.obamasrealfather.com/

[wantagoodlif]

02:55 PM on 04/17/2012

Let me start by saying I am Black, US Army Soldier, and was very proud when I voted for President Obama. With all that being said, it is a given that some of the people’s refusal to believe Mr. Obama's authenticity of origin and source documents (birth cert, ssn etc.) have stemmed from racism. It may even be possible that Sheriff Arpaio's investigation into Mr. Obama’s source documents may be fraudulent. So let’s say that this is the case; why hasn't Mr. Obama's lawyer, the Attorney General, or any other legal entity charged Sheriff Arpaio with defamation? If Arpaio’s investigation is so fraudulent why has the same media which jumped all over the Trevon Martin case, Kony 2012, or the war on women’s’ rights have all but blacked out this man’s accusation of Mr. Obama’s forged documentation? If people believe that Sherriff Arpaio is spreading lies then why isn't there a single person out there who wants to sue him… to prove him wrong? If they did prove him wrong in an open forum then this rumor would finally be dead. For all the people who blog here, your rebuttal of racism as an answer to the eligibility question is as weak as President Obama’s lawyer saying it is irrelevant. You want to kill this rumor, don’t yell out racism; focus instead on refuting Joe Arpaio’s claims by taking him to court or exposing his bias findings on a national media platform.

[bdaved]

12:15 AM on 04/18/2012

The reason you don't hear much about this in the media is that it's an obvious sham. It just doesn't rate much attention.
Joe Arpaio will never take those claims to court. Judge Masin in New Jersey demonstrated what happens to that kind of "evidence" when it appears in court.
"If they did prove him wrong in an open forum then this rumor would finally be dead", you say. The thing is that practically everything the Cold Case Posse came up with was debunked before the "investigation" officially started. Joseph Farah knew they couldn't produce any real evidence to challenge President Obama's eligibility. That was never the intention, and the "investigation" was sabotaged from the beginning to remove any possibility that anything it produced could be presented in court. The biased and unqualified personnel used, the lack of professional methodology, the total disregard for having certifiable evidence-- they could hardly have done a better job of creating an inadmissible mess.
What they did produce was a big smear, that could be used for fund-raising and political posturing. Why does no one sue? I suggest you look into "defamation of a public figure".

[wantagoodlif]

01:32 PM on 04/18/2012

I thank you. To answer the defamation issue: a public figure does have grounds to claim defamation if he/she can prove the defaming accusation was out of malice (fraud). I’d also like to add that Joe Arpaio's findings have proven credible inside of a court room. There is a gentleman by the name of Hugh McInnish who used Sherriff Arpaio’s findings as evidence to the Alabama Supreme Court. I ask that you please look up the court’s conclusions on this matter. Remember, this post discussed President Obama’s eligibility based on the definition of natural born citizenship. This is what was presented to the New Jersey judge, not documentation. Documentation on this matter was not allowed if you recall. As far as the citizenship issue, there was a person in this thread who well cited several presidents who did not fit the two citizen parentage definition, so based on that, eligibility is really a moot point and if pursued could easily be considered racist. The matter I am talking about concerns the accusation of source document forgery and the position of a state high court on this subject. Finally, I'd like to say that this topic is being argued over constantly on main stream media internet sites like Huff Post, ABC, Fox, and CNN. News articles about this topic is rolling in on an almost weekly basis from these outlets, and yet these new debates have not seen the light of day on these same companies' television broadcasts…funny huh?

[crabbyj67]

12:29 PM on 04/20/2012

Yeah, you're a black soldier like i'm a bunny rabbit...you went a long way to try shielding yourself from the criticism that you're posting thinly-veiled conspiracy theories where you "wonder" why people aren't proving a negative, and posing questions where you seem to be ignoring the fact that they have been answered.

[Joe Bolin]

09:30 PM on 04/21/2012

So if we need a drivers liscense we all show a birth certificate..Everyone... Easy, right?.. But instead of dropping a copy in the mail or sending a fax to the state, Mr. Obama sends LAWYERS to court.. Thats the easy way?... Do you think people are stupid?.... REALLY?? That dumb??? No birth certificate equals GUILTY... And I was never a birther TILL NOW.... The damage control team is so weak here its funny and we all see right through you phonys.... You better go back to the boss and come up with something else. Again..

[Will737]

04:40 PM on 04/15/2012

The attorney in this case, Mario Apuzzo, barely escaped pretty big fine--his opponent's attorney's fees-- in the Third Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Kerchner v. Obama.. Apuzzo was issued an order to show cause why he should not be fined for filing a frivilous appeal.

So Apuzzo wrote a 95 page brief on the subject about why he shouldn't be punished because he wasted their time. IMO the brief is nothing more than 95 pages of a mealy-mouthed "oh please don't punish poor ignorant little me because they will take my law license away" bunch of whiney bull. But you can read it and form your own opinion.

http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/34567772-03-09-4209-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-Appeal-Atty-Apuzzo-s-Response-to-Court-s-Show-Cause-Order

The Court in Kerchner let Apuzzo off saying he had given an explanation of "his efforts to research the applicable law on standing". They didn't say he justified himself, just that they weren't going to impose the penalty for a completely "frivilous" lawsuit. I suppose they thought he had learned his lesson by having to explain in 95 pages about why he was so pathetically ignorant.

IMO, they were wrong to let him off. The federal rules on "standing" are clear, and the mere fact that other cases were not exactly the same does not change that.

But notice the lawsuit above is not federal. Bet he won't take that chance again.

[chris hatala]

01:51 PM on 04/15/2012

The birchers are racists and tea baggers. No need for facts, if they say it enough it must be true. They need psychiatric evaluations and drug testing.

[Stebbytubby]

11:42 AM on 04/15/2012

These people are obviously wearing their tinfoil hats too tightly and it's cutting off the circulation to their singular brain cell.... Make these idiots pay for court costs and watch them recede like the hemorrhoids they really are....

[DennyCrane]

11:01 AM on 04/15/2012

Face it, Birthers. If Obama were white, you wouldn't be questioning his birth certificate.

[Jonathan D Linscott]

03:30 AM on 04/16/2012

And you base this conclusion on what? You either support the Rule of Law or not; it is not a tool of either side, or the middle, to use wherever it is expedient, and to disregard it where it is not. What does half his racial heritage have to do with his refusal to allow the transparency and disclosure he promised? What does it have to with the Rule of Law?

Would you support an agreement requiring both Romney and Obama having to file the same documentation to be on the ballot?

[bdaved]

03:58 AM on 04/16/2012

What other President or candidate has had their eligibility so thoroughly demonstrated as President Obama has?

[johnnyb93]

08:26 AM on 04/15/2012

The day Obama was voted president by the electors, and again when Chief Justice Roberts swore him in, he became legally the president no matter where he was born, which became a moot point. The Constitution, in Article VI also states that just about anything the government does is the "supreme Law of the Land" "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." So the Constitution says that anything the government does is automatically constitutional. The Constitution is a fraud with several technical outs that make the Bill of Rights a joke. It says a lot of pretty things but it allows the government to go its sleazy way "notwithstanding." Not only that, the Constitution never defines "natural born citizen" and there are many who understand that as the child of a citizen of the United States notwithstanding the place of birth. So all this energy spent on proving that Obama isn't a natural born citizen is a royal waste of time.

[bdaved]

01:55 PM on 04/15/2012

jb, Article VI says this: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof..." All legislation must adhere to the Constitution. The phrase "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State" does not mean "any Thing in the Constitution of the United States or in the Laws of any State"; it means "any Thing in the Constitution of any State or in the Laws of any State".

[johnnyb93]

01:08 AM on 04/16/2012

That is a good point and you can take it your way if it makes you feel better. It is ambiguous for a reason. Do you really believe Congress is fastidious in passing laws "in pursuance thereof?"

[johnnyb93]

01:12 AM on 04/16/2012

The founders would have made the line say: "Constitutions" plural, if they intended your interpretation. The fact is, all laws passed by Congress take on the same weight at the Constitution itself. The rump Supreme Court may rule such laws unconstitutional eventually but don't hold your breath.

[mc1135]

04:25 PM on 04/19/2012

"So the Constitution says that anything the government does is automatically constitutional."

This is ridiculous and absurd... If this were true, what would be the point of even having a Constitution.

The Constitution GRANTS specific powers to the federal government. Anything not specifically mentioned is up to the states and the people.

It's pretty simple.

[Liz Norman]

02:12 AM on 04/15/2012

When are these "Birthers" going to realize that the President is a natural born citizen and give this foolishness up. Are they that afraid that they can't vote him out of office? Has he really been any worse that any of the other presidents we have had in the past (be honest now, we've had some really bad presidents before)?

You're efforts are getting you nowhere and wasting time and money - just move on.

[l78lancer]

01:57 AM on 04/15/2012

There we have it. Because he has been president, his name goes on the ballot automatically.

The ship has sailed on the birther issue.

End.

[bdaved]

02:29 AM on 04/15/2012

But that's not the truth. President Obama's name goes on the Democratic primary ballot in New Jersey because he was nominated by a voters' petition, the same as anybody else's would.

[Grichde]

07:08 PM on 04/14/2012

The hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.

[truthsayer4ever]

11:11 PM on 04/14/2012

Certain Obama

[chris hatala]

01:52 PM on 04/15/2012

More bagger foolishness.

[TokyoTea]

04:44 PM on 04/14/2012

When are they going to start imposing penalties for these frivolous lawsuits?

[starchildjg24]

05:32 PM on 04/14/2012

I know Orly Taitz has paid out thousands of her own money in fines, don't know about anyone else.

[bdaved]

07:30 PM on 04/14/2012

Thousands of somebody's money, anyway.

[l78lancer]

01:56 AM on 04/15/2012

They were only a problem for republicans under the Bush Administration.

[goodmarina]

04:25 PM on 04/14/2012

What a waste of Taxpayer time & money!

Let's just all agree once and for all (even you birther's out there) ...  had Pres. Obama been White and had a very Gringo Name ... none of this would ever be a legal or social concern..

Pres. Obama's only mistake seems to be that his mother married a black man from the African Continent and gave her son an ethnic name and his Father's name.  

Disgraceful that in America we punish a woman for her decisions on how to have a child and raise a child ...  and continuously punish her child and a Nation (down the road) because some bigots are comfortable with it.

 

[Demesne Jones]

02:53 PM on 05/05/2012

She couldn't really have married his "father" here in the US because he already had two wives in Kenya. Maybe in Kenya the marriage was legal but not here in the states. I think you ought to get off your high horse and stop the racial overtones and start looking at facts. To say the least something is wrong with Obama's whole story when everything is still under lock and key. When he releases his past (which seem to be shady) then maybe you can have a conversation. Or I guess that isn't what you want because you just want to rant about racial issues.

[afghanistan vet]

01:09 PM on 05/18/2012

Lock and key?? The issue addressed in birtherism is whether Obama was born in the United States. He was: live with it The legitimacy of his birth does not affect his eligibility for the presidency. Abraham Lincoln believed himself illegitimate, by the way.