Judge to Birthers: Obama Can Run for President

An effort to have President Barack Obama's name removed from New Jersey's primary ballot was dealt a setback following an administrative judge's recent ruling.

Author and — but a judge said that week the president can still be a presidential candidate.

In what attorney Mario Apuzzo is calling a "sham of justice," a state judge has ruled against objectors seeking to remove Obama's name from New Jersey's upcoming primary ballot.

According to Apuzzo, the attorney representing , 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 the suggestion 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."

Purpura, of Wall Township, and Moran, a Toms River resident, filed a challenge alleging that Obama has both failed to show proof that he was born in the U.S. and is not a natural born citizen because both of his parents are not U.S. citizens. According to the Constitution, Apuzzo charges, Obama is ineligible to serve as the country's president and should not appear on the state's June 5 primary ballot.

Obama was represented by Alexandra Hill of the Newark-based law firm Genova, Burn and Giantomasi.

What struck Apuzzo, he said, was not just the judge's decision, but a concession made by Hill that the court has no documented evidence of Obama's birth. Armed with a number of witnesses, including an expert who was willing to testify that Obama's birth certificate, posted online in April 2011 by the White House, was fraudulent, Apuzzo was instead told to holster his guns.

"We were willing to present that what's online has been manipulated by computer, human, or both and that it's not reliable. I told them I was ready to prove that and if they didn't want this witness to testify then concede that," he said. "I got Obama (Obama's attorney Hill) to concede that there is no evidence before the court as to his place of birth, which includes what's on the internet."

Though the judge ruled the Obama isn't required to prove his ballot eligibility, Apuzzo considers the concession a win of sorts, one he hopes will help his case gain traction should it appear before an appellate court. He stressed that he's willing to go as far as he can to prove that Obama does not belong on the state's ballot.

Should that mean taking the case to the State Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court, Apuzzo said he's ready.

This post is shared among several sites serving communities in Morris and Sussex counties. Comments below may be by readers of any of those sites.

alaphiah April 14, 2012 at 06:15 AM
Yes I think we should just trash the constitution and do what ever we all please this whole constitutional republic thing is an incredible waste of time. Oh wait that's what Democrats are doing I believe they are calling it fundamentally changing the United States or some progressive thing-a-ma-jig like that, That's the ticket!
Hookerman April 14, 2012 at 11:51 AM
You are wrong, wrong, wrong! Obama provided his birth certificate in 2008, before he was even elected. He allowed it to be handled and inspected by third parties, and all of the birthers' forgery claims were quickly debunked. In addition, his birth records were verified by the Hawaii Dept of Health; http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/ Stop buying the birther garbage!
Hookerman April 14, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Four years ago... http://factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/
Mary Anne April 14, 2012 at 07:30 PM
I love the comments about the constitution that the right wing always trot out to justify what ever garbage they are trying to sell. How about the separtation of church and state? Guess they forgot that one. Yes a black man is president...get over it!!!
Hank Heller April 15, 2012 at 07:20 PM
Mr. Hochman, I am surprised that you have entered this fray on either side. To me, this tells me that you do not have enough relevent copy to publish right now. I have been hoping for some time, that Parsippany Patch would be allowed to be kept seperate and different than Huffington Post. Please don't tell me that HP is insisting on inserting it's great big ugly footprint on the Patch. I have believed in Natalie Davis' integrity for a long time now. Please don't muck up our belief in Ms. Davis and PARSIPPANY Patch with the senior editor's and/or Huffington Post's personal politics. Sincerely, Hank Heller
Louis C. Hochman April 15, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Mr. Heller -- it's not my intention to take any side on any issue. I'm just noting that one of the community members who blogs on Patch (and any community member can) had something to say on this. If another blogger takes an opposing view, that would be interesting too, and we'd also be glad to point that out.
alaphiah April 16, 2012 at 08:34 AM
Yes we can! Reverting to second grade epithets is always sinking lower
Hank Heller April 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Mr. Hochman, But wasn't that being done, rather effectively, before and after your addition? I do not see the need for editorial intercession here, on either side. How did your comment aid the understanding of either side except to let us know that you don't approve of the "current state of the GOP" and to say "hi, Prentiss". C'mon, you are being disingenuous, I think. From a professional standpoint I don't think you belong in the game. Hank Heller
Maxim Sapozhnikov April 16, 2012 at 12:48 PM
>> The fake birth certificate that was verified by both the Hawaii Dept >> of Health and the Hawaii Gubernatorial office ??? Come on Ann... >> wake up! Certified, huh? Check your talking points. Obama's lawyer is on the record with the county court of New Jersey stipulating that the birth certificate posted on WH official website is a forgery.
Maxim Sapozhnikov April 16, 2012 at 12:55 PM
>> http://factcheck.org/2008/08/... >> >> Stop buying the birther garbage! So Fox News is a Republican propaganda but FactCheck and PolitiFact (both founded by staunch Obama supporters) are God's word and deserve our full trust. Does Captain Picard have a beard in your universe?
Louis C. Hochman April 16, 2012 at 01:21 PM
I'm sorry, Mr. Heller, but I disagree. Part of what we attempt to do with this site is foster conversation. Since one of the community members who contributes to the site had written something related to this topic, I thought it would be useful to point it out. If she'd taken the exact opposite stand in her piece, I would have written an identical comment highlighting that, as well. I don't believe noting the existence of a person's position is an endorsement (or, for that matter, a condemnation) of it — whether we do it quoting the person in a story or pointing out the position in a comment. And in fact, I'd encourage anyone who feels they have more to say on this or any topic to contribute a blog post, just as Prentiss had. You can do so by going to the front page of this site and hitting the "Start a blog" link — we've been working to make the submissions process even easier and more straightforward, so I'd love to see as many views reflected as possible.
Hookerman April 16, 2012 at 01:58 PM
Max, if you posted a link to FoxNews to support your point, I would read what they had to say and evaluate its validity, and not just reject it immediately because it’s FoxNews. Soooo…. with that in mind, did YOU actually open the link and read what FactCheck had to say, or did you just immediately reject it because it’s FactCheck? Did you look at the pictures of them actually handling a real document, and not an online photo-shopped manipulation? Did you read the points they made about why Corsi’s forgery accusations are wrong? Did you read the statements made by head of the Hawaii Dept of Health? Why don’t you address the content of their investigation, rather than outright rejecting it because of who they are??? Just so we know where your head’s at… do you sincerely believe that President Obama produced a forged birth certificate (not once, but twice), that both FactCheck and the State of Hawaii are both in on this conspiracy, and that Obama’s parents planted a fake birth announcement in 1961, just in case their child might run for president one day? Is that your contention???
Maxim Sapozhnikov April 16, 2012 at 02:21 PM
Of course I went through the FactCheck link; in fact, I did it in 2008, and found it lacking. For starters, they muddy the water by referring to the green paper in the photo as "birth certificate", whereas the document has a different name and different legal meaning. Maya Soetoro, Obama's half-sister, possesses a similar "certification of live birth" despite the undisputed fact of her being born in Indonesia. Then, there was the statement of Dr. Fukino. Would she be the first bureaucrat to lie at her boss's behest? I'd love to see her repeat that claim under oath. Later, Gov. Abercrombie (an old buddy of Annie Dunham, by the way) tried to put the BC talk to rest by publishing the document, and failed to locate it. I wonder why. And finally, the newspaper publication. The article (assuming it's real) says nothing of the place of birth, only of the parents' postal address. The announcement, as was customary for respected families (and not for a "future citizenship claim" as FactCheck claims), was likely ordered by Madelyn Dunham who would do it regardless of her daughter's location at the time.
Hookerman April 16, 2012 at 03:54 PM
Max, just like the rest of the birthers, you’re not providing any reasons ‘why’ the evidence is fake, you’re only providing reasons ‘how’ the evidence could be fake… and it’s all based on a belief in a ‘vast left-wing conspiracy’ (sound familiar???). You state that Dr. Fukino could lie about the evidence (even though she has nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so), but you don’t acknowledge that she is not the only person who has access to Hawaii birth records. This conspiracy you want so desperately to believe in would have to include every single person within the Hawaii state department who has access to birth records (including the Gubernatorial office). This is a conspiracy theory that is on par with those who believe that the moon landings were faked (which also included forged documents). Incidentally, there is nothing suspicious about calling a short form certificate of birth a ‘birth certificate’. It is what I’ve provided my whole life whenever I was asked to provide a birth certificate, and I’m sure it’s what you provided in order to obtain a passport or driver license. Most people go their whole live without even seeing their long form certificate, even though the birthers thought this was so important that the president provide it. It’s just another boondoggle.
Maxim Sapozhnikov April 16, 2012 at 04:23 PM
The "conspiracy" does not have to be "vast", and only involves Valerie Jarrett and former Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle (yeah, imagine - a Republican!). Dr. Fukino is no different than, say, treasury sec Timmy "Turbo Tax" Geithner or press sec Jar-Jar "I know three Hilary Rosens" Carney. They were a lie or lose your job bind, and being Democrats, they likely did not hesitate for long. The so-called "short form" is a valid governmental document but it has a distinct official name, which is "certification of live birth". I'm sure people in Annenberg's office were aware of it. The only reason they chose to refer to it as "birth certificate" is to deceive the public. I'm sure FactCheck is not part of the conspiracy, assuming such exists - they are just protecting their boy-king however they can. Now, can you explain the origin of the - now official - BC forgery published by the White House?
Hookerman April 16, 2012 at 05:32 PM
The below link should answer your question Max. http://hawaii.gov/gov/newsroom/press-releases/hawaii-health-department-grants-president-obamas-request-for-certified-copies-of-long-form-birth-certificate Oh, that’s right… I bet you’re going to tell me that Governor Abercrombie is part of the conspiracy, as is Hawaii Health Director Loretta Fundy, as is the state registrar Alvin Onaka…. and so on, and so on, and so on. That’s how things work with conspiracists like yourself; it doesn’t matter what evidence you are provided, you just claim that every document is a forgery, and every testimony is part of the conspiracy. It’s a nice fantasy to dwell in since it allows you to never really have to think.
Maxim Sapozhnikov April 16, 2012 at 05:48 PM
The three people you named saw the same document - now officially declared as forgery - that Obama posted on the White House website. That makes them computer-illiterate fools (certainly true for Gov. Abercrombie, a well known pothead in his younger decades), not conspirators. Heck, half the country had swallowed the fake hook, line, and sinker. And so did you, even though I suspect that your computer expertise would easily allow you to recognize the fake for what it is. Such is the power of group thinking and preconceived notions.
Hookerman April 16, 2012 at 07:30 PM
Officially declared a forgery???? By whom??? The only people who claim it’s a forgery is Jerome Corsi, who has made a career out of Obama forgery claims, and was wrong on all counts to his forgery claims in 2008, and Joe Arpaio, who obviously has an ax to grind with the Obama administration. Please provide some sort of substantiation for this far-out claim… so far, you’ve provided absolutely nothing!
Maxim Sapozhnikov April 16, 2012 at 07:37 PM
>> Officially declared a forgery???? By whom??? Oh man, you really got to synchronize your talking points. It has been officially stipulated by Obama's own lawyer in New Jersey case, which happens to be the official topic of the post. Get back to me after you actually read the hearing.
Hookerman April 17, 2012 at 02:07 AM
Oh good lord Max, pull your head out of your right-wing blogs, and think for yourself for once!!! Obama's attorney never said the document was a forgery... she was making a legal argument against the plaintiff's claim that an authentic birth certificate is required to prove eligibility. What you can't comprehend is that her argument will keep Romney, if he is elected, from having to go through this same nonsense that the birthers put Obama through. Now, if you are going to continue with your ridiculous claim that Obama's attorney has admitted his birth certificate is a forgery, the link below has the whole video teleconference of the hearing. Please point us to the exact time in the video where Obama's attorney says that the certificate is a forgery. http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/04/nj-ballot-ruling-on-obama-eligibility/
Maxim Sapozhnikov April 17, 2012 at 02:49 AM
You did not expect me to listen to 3 hours of this drivel, did you? I kinda hoped you'd have a transcript for me. http://www.westernjournalism.com/forgerygate-purpura-and-moran-v-obama-ballot-hearing-video-2, around 4:15 mark. Ms. Hill admits that Obama has not presented his birth certificate, which naturally means - that's my conclusion - that the notorious PDF file is not the image of such. Ms. Hill follows up that he doesn't have to according to the law. That sounds prima facie ridiculous to me from common-sense point of view but hey, if the judge ate it...
Hookerman April 18, 2012 at 01:08 AM
Once again, watch the video that YOU produced. When they are speaking of the birth certificate being 'presented', they are speaking about being presented to the NJ Secretary of State. I'll make it easy for you, go to 9:08 in the video Judge; "Is it your position here that the document on the internet is legally irrelevant to this case" Hill: "Yes". Judge: "And you concede that Mr. Obama has not produced an alleged birth certificate through the Secretary of State, saying 'here's my birth certificate'". Hill; "Not to my knowledge, I know he produced it nationally, and everyone condoned it". Judge; "But you have no knowledge that he provided it, and you have not provided it here today"? Hill; "No" The argument of Obama's attorney is that the document on the internet is legally irrelevant (not a forgery), and that she has no knowledge of the birth certificate being presented to the Secretary of State. She states that the birth certificate was produced nationally. So this nonsense that Obama's attorney has admitted to a forged document is nothing but a birther fantasy.
Maxim Sapozhnikov April 18, 2012 at 01:34 AM
Okay, I'll grant you that - there is no *direct* admission. Obama's lawyer skilfully used a loophole in NJ law to avoid bringing the PDF file into evidence. To me, however, the fact that they needed a state specific gimmick (and a benevolent judge) to win, instead of slapping the document down on the table and laugh the plaintiffs out of the court, speaks volumes about the file's veracity. All it takes is *one* Secretary of State to deny the ballot without a prima facie proof.
Dw. Dunphy April 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM
In the spirit of bi-partisanship let us then ask the question of why there isn't equal and opposite moral outrage regarding Mitt Romney's current refusal to release all his tax returns. Is there a bigger issue that he has been scrupulously delivering those that pertain to the years he ran for president, and the rest have fallen by the wayside? In that, is the Republican party set to nominate someone who has been paying less tax than he is supposed to by law (never mind the tax breaks that are afforded his bracket, the loopholes of income from investments versus unearned income)? After all, the whole Tea Party ethic is based around (purportedly) the issue of taxes, Taxed Enough Already, and so forth. Yet these Tea Partiers are prepared to hold their noses and deliver Romney to the general election, all for the disdain for Barack Obama. I am not saying there should be the seething, angry outcry for Romney to reveal. I am saying that those who are so vehemently demanding Obama's birth certificate should, under their own codes of belief and liberty and such, be commensurately outraged by Romney's actions, yet are not. It leads the logical and reasonable to believe this has nothing to do with being the watchdogs of justice and morality and the law. It has everything to do with only burning the witches you want to burn. There's nothing Christian or moral or just about that.
Hookerman April 18, 2012 at 12:04 PM
As the judge stated, in other states they did provide the actual document, and it was still thrown out of court. The 'gimmick', as you call it, is to avoid as much court time and legal fees as possible with this nonsense.
Maxim Sapozhnikov April 18, 2012 at 12:53 PM
If the judge said so he is either lying or, much more likely, mistaken. Obama's team has never presented an affirmative defense to any eligibility challenge I know of, and it is unlikely they ever will. I wonder if you have actually seen the PDF file yourself. I'm a certified computer pro, and I didn't need HuffPo's spinmeisters or Arpaio's "investigation team" to make my own conclusions. The file is so fake it's not even a forgery; it looks more like someone's April Fool's Day joke.
Hookerman April 18, 2012 at 01:40 PM
Uh huh.... back to square one now, forged documents and crooked judges. Enough of this one!
Maxim Sapozhnikov April 18, 2012 at 01:45 PM
I did not say the judge is crooked, just mistaken. You also conveniently skipped my question: did you, or did you not, check the PDF with your own eyes?
Hank Heller April 18, 2012 at 09:47 PM
Mr. Hochman, We don't have to agree on everything, or even anything. Since the job and responsibility is yours, not mine, I'll move on to a new topic. I understand the "game" of blogging, but if you wanted to really cause serious and studious discourse here on PATCH, I implore you to only allow participation by bloggers who have the courage to sign a real name, not some silly (and often cowardly, "nom de guerre"). Most of the time, folks who have not had the courage to sign their real names do not have anything of value to add to a civil discussion. I don't know if Patch can be such a mechanism toward integrity, but it is something I would truly welcome. I think it would cull out much of the poison that is spewed in these lines if people felt the responsibility of only writing what they can be held accountable for. It would certainly help my reading enjoyment of Patch. Sincerely, Hank Heller
alaphiah April 20, 2012 at 04:43 AM
“I’m no birther, don’t get me wrong,” Monckton said. “I haven’t a clue where Obama was born and I wouldn’t want to entreat into the private grief behind investigating. But the point is, is what he has done on the White House website is he has put up a document which he is plainly a forgery and I would regard that as a very serious matter.” http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/22/lord-monckton-im-no-birther-but-obama-birth-certificate-plainly-a-forgery/


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »