Tea Party Tribune – Tea Party & Political News
Tea Party and Political News Reporting
paid advertising


Breaking News


Print This Post Print This Post April 13, 2012

Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery but disregards “image” as Indication of Obama’s Ineligibility Damage Control


More articles by »

Posted by:
Categories: Breaking News, Featured, The President

A recent ballot challenge hearing in New Jersey exposes a desperate strategy by Obama to distance himself from his forged certificate and induce the contrived value of his transient political popularity as the only “legitimate qualification” needed to hold the office of the presidency.

By Dan Crosby of THE DAILY PEN
Editor: Penbrook Johannson

Thursday, April 12, 2012

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.

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.

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 avoid an ever shrinking legal space, and an increasing weight, of his failure to meet constitutional eligibility requirements. 

Hill, of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi Attorneys in Newark, made a desperate motion to dismiss the ballot objection arguing that Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship status was not relevant to being placed on the New Jersey presidential ballot because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens.

Judge Masin denied the motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.

“Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified,” says TDP Editor, Penbrook Johannson, “Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”

According to Johannson, there is an overwhelming level of moral certainty that Obama is a usurper, but until a court with jurisdiction considers this case, Obama’s status as a legitimate president is in limbo.

“He does not exist as a president except in the imagination of those who blindly support him. Whereas he is politically desired by a transient consensus, his legality is unresolved until a responsible court makes a determination. This is the essence of our crisis. Our nation exists in a state of non-authorized identity. Obama is just some guy calling himself a president and living in the White House without the confirmative authority to do so.”

Obama’s document forgery and fraudulent presidency have now forced him to flee to a “strange twilight zone” between political popularity and legal legitimacy where poorly counterfeited records are apparently allowed to be published by Obama using government media resources for political purposes, yet those same records are held by the courts as irrelevant for determining Obama’s legal eligibility status because they are, according to judges, “so poorly forged” they are obviously meant to be satirical and not to be taken seriously as evidence.

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.”

The third component of natural born eligibility is maintenance of natural born citizenship status from birth to election without interruption, involuntarily or voluntarily, due to expatriation, extradition, renouncement or foreign adoption.

“Obama is mocking our constitution,” says Johannson, “His position is that he never claimed the image was an indication of his natural born status, just that it was information about his birth. Whether it is forged or authentic is irrelevant to Obama because plausible deniability affords him the security in knowing that no legal authority is willing to hang him with it.”

Of course, Johannson adds that it makes Obama look like a willing accomplice and a liar, but, he says, “…show me a politician who cares about being seen as a liar by the public. If people who support him want to vote for a person like that, it reveals more about the reprobate character of Obama supporters than competency of any legal determination about his lack of constitutional eligibility. Degenerates will vote for a degenerate while patriots will exhaust all civil means to remove him…until those civil means are exhausted. Then things get ugly for government.”

“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.”

Obama is now arguing that because he is politically popular, as he points to as being indicated by his so-called ‘election’, despite accusations of eligibility fraud and election fraud, the constitutional eligibility mandate is not relevant, in his view. Until a courageous authority is willing to disagree and hold Obama to an equally weighted legal standard, civil remedies for the Obama problem are limited.

Johannson adds that Obama is making the same argument on behalf of Obamacare.

“If he had the gall to actually tell the Supreme Court that they have no authority to determine the unconstitutionality of his illegitimate policies, what makes anyone think he believes they have the authority to disqualify him due to his lack of constitutional eligibility? Obama believes he holds preeminent power over all branches of government because of his delusions of political grandeur.”

He correctly points to a lifetime pattern of behavior and testimony by Obama which indicates a complete lack of regard for the U.S. Constitution when it restricts Obama’s political agenda and lust for power.

“This is a guy who illegally defaced public property when he scribed his aspirations to be ‘king’ in a concrete sidewalk at the age of ten, for God’s sake. Now, his ‘majesty’ wants to put his illegal ‘graffiti’ into American law books. However, his problem is that he has to face the fact that he is an abject failure in his capacity to meet any standard required by the 250-year-old U.S. Constitution, in everything he tries to do. The Constitution owns him and he can’t stand it. He hates it. Therefore, instead of admitting his lack of constitutionality, he simply breaks the rules and proceeds to illegally scribe his fake authority on everything until someone is willing to physically stop him. Obama is not just an illegitimate politician, he is a rogue outlaw without regard for the divine providence of American law.”

Apuzzo submitted that New Jersey law requires Obama to show evidence that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. Apuzzo added that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot.

The account of the trial can be read at:



Related Links:

Obama Birth Certificate: New Jersey Judge Blocks Case, Final Decision Rests With Secretary Of State
Judge Rules Against Obama Objectors
The Court Petition File
The Ruling 4-12-2012
Related Videos

Related Articles:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Poster






Comments (69)

Loading... Logging you in...

Login with your OpenID

Or create an account using OpenID

  • Logged in as
Basically speaking, Obama is a Bastard that hold the highest office in the land, so regardless that "Constitutionally speaking" he never had legal grounds to be in office, its all a Moot point...as he arrogantly disregards the rest of the Constitution, he can just yell Neener neener come get me you real American weiners!

1 reply · active 3 hours ago

Apparently, the Constitution means nothing to this administration, Congress, Secretaries of State, Election Officials or anyone that is now getting by with redefining the law and or its intent. This is precisely what the 9 attorneys general were making reference to by citing similar acts. Until the legal experts address this issue we will become a lawless society if we are not already. In the beginning the states set up and defined the federal government. Today the federal government dictates control over the states and people. Therefore, fault and blame of a 'do nothing' state government begins and ends with the state. It is apparent the states have gone deaf with the shouting of the people and they elect to not see. However, they do not fall short of speak no evil.

Here's a novel question...what is Obama using in 2012 to justify his 'eligibility' to be on every ballot in all 50 states and Puerto Rico?

2 replies · active 17 hours ago

I would include the national media, ABC, NBC and CBS, as co-contributors to this national fraud. They never vetted Obama, instead they through all objectivity out the window and actively campaigned for Obama. To this day, they are continuing to cover up Obama's eligibility. Why does a supposed Constitutional Professor need to hide his grades, his papers, his briefs any writings, thesis, why? What is so damning that anything in Obama's past, his BC and his academic record need to be sealed? You would think he would want to make that information very public.

1 reply · active 1 day ago

It's all rigged. Why does this surprise anyone? They will push Romney in front of us, even though it's clear he is funded by almost exactly the same entities (Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Chase/JP Morgan, and that ilk). Romney says in a debate (paraphrased), If you want to know about the constitution, ask Ron Paul.

Yes, ask Ron Paul. Also ask him what's going to save the collapsing dollar, reduce the debt, reduce spending enough to get the debt lower than the GDP. Ask him all of these things, but whatever you do, don't vote for him because he might fix it. That would be awesome for the people, but it would sucks for the financial elite.

There's some folks in high global places that like it just the way it is.

Alexandra Hill is another brain dead lawyer to come out of our inept law schools.

Is there anywhere we can see the official court transcript or a legal copy of this testimony especially where MS. Hill admits to the forged documents?

1 reply · active 23 hours ago

How is this woman a lawyer? This statement should demand an immediate boot in the ass.
"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."

Barack Obama is shitting in his panties. Literally

2 replies · active 6 hours ago


Acesymmetric's avatar

Acesymmetric · 22 hours ago

Buddaroll---the question isn't "Can we see it" the questions is; "Why can't we see it?" The answer being, because it never happened. The forgery myth has been debunked over and over. The tea party people need to get a new life and change the record.....sick of this stupid song.

3 replies · active 5 hours ago

This article is completely untrue - no wonder birthers are so ill informed if this is where they get their information. I watched the whole proceedings and Hill didn't admit the image was a forgery at all. All parties, the judge and both sets of lawyers agreed the computer image was inadmissible as it is obviously not a certified document. All Apuzzo's evidence was disparaged by the judge because it was just innuendo and rumour downloaded from the internet. It got the treatment it deserved - he was more or less laughed out of court by a judge that let him present his case for over hours. If you don't believe me you can watch the video of their entire proceedings yourself here:

5 replies · active 4 minutes ago

Also, it is amazing how the state run news media has completely overlooked Romney's qualifications for being a Natural Born Citizen. His parents were not born in the united States either. Now what do we do?

2 replies · active 8 hours ago

On Obama, the birth certificate is not the issue. The definition of a Natural Born Citizen required both parents to be born in the united States, which president Obama's father was born in Kenya. game, set, match.

2 replies · active 2 hours ago


Nobody of Import's avatar

Nobody of Import · 17 hours ago

If you accept the forgery, he's STILL ineligible.

1) His claimed father was NEVER a US Citizen, thus rendering him ineligible.
2) He studied as an Indonesian citizen (Only way he could be allowed to study there...) in his childhood, thus forfeiting his natural born status.

This line of argument that this lawyer used is bogus. As for Mitt Romney...if he's not born of two US Citizens on US Soil, he's not eligible either.

1 reply · active 2 hours ago

What exact law was it HE broke? Not the Constitution! I would expect something like any person who the state ballot commissioners place on the ballot and who receives the most votes and who is sworn in by the Chief Justice but who is not a natural born citizen shall be guilty of xxxxxxx.

All such parties HAD a Constitutional right to have Obama be a natural born and they all freely chose to forgo that right! Don't come around crying AFTER YOU screwed up.

Currit tempus contra desides et sui juris contemptores. Time runs against the slothful and those who neglect their rights.

I suggest you look at the Constitution.

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."

Which means that even if he is never accepted as a "natural born" citizen, so long as he is a "citizen," he is still eligible to hold the office. This is such an old topic. People need to just move on already./

3 replies · active 3 minutes ago


100% taxpayer's avatar

100% taxpayer · 15 hours ago

It was always apparent the birth certificate was a forgery. Obama could have acknowledged that early on unless he had something to hide. Now that the White House, given no other choice, has acknowledged in court that the certificate is a forgery, what do his supporters do now after their making fun out of those who had been correctly reporting the document is fake? Is it likely any of them will say, gee, I was wrong, I was duped by my hero? In a pig's eye they will. They will merely change the subject.

Before the next election I certainly hope it's REQUIRED for ALL candidates to be vetted and SHOW their ORIGINAL Birth Certificate. IF I, a common citizen, must produce one for my children to play little league sports, I would think it would be required to apply for ANY office of the US Government!!!!

1 reply · active 11 hours ago

I seem to remember watching Fox News and Sean Hannity (who I despise) introduced Romney onto his show saying he was the son if Immigrant parents. That means if his parents were born outside of the US, Romney is not eligible either. What gives? Are we supposed to take whatever they give us? I for one will not tolerate Obama, and if this is true, Romney being crammed down our throat if Romney is not eligible as well.

3 replies · active 2 hours ago

There is not one record regarding BO that does not have some type of anomaly.

Not one document can be supported from its source.

Who among us has this problem of some oddity attached to each and every document and record that we are a party to.

Is there any other person in this entire nation that has this combination of the wrong social security number prefix, two digit year postal stamp on their selective service card, different font types on their birth certificate, and funny faces along with misspelled words on their birth document certification.

BO has moved from the ridiculous to the insanely comical, in his trifecta of document fraud.

WHY in this great country, The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA can all of Washington allow this to happen and continue. They are a mocery of the world. Why, when they are elected to protect all the people, can't they make it right? What ever happened to IMPEACHMENT? What does the CONSTITION say? We believe in the Constituion and that is what our Country was established on. Come on Someone STAND UP for what we believe in. Do NOT allow this to continue. DO SOMETHING.

we believe in the Constition it is what our Country was built on.

Nof, This is what law schools are turning out.


Post a new comment

Comments by