Constitution
Obama eligibility challenge in New Jersey
Two New Jersey residents became the latest to file an Obama eligibility challenge. They are also the first to challenge Obama’s eligibility in New Jersey for this election.
Latest Obama eligibility challenge
Nick Purpura and Ted Moran, both of south central New Jersey, objected to Barack H. Obama’s placement on the primary ballot. New Jersey will hold its primary election on June 5. Purpura and Moran say that Obama should not have his name on the ballot because he is not eligible to the office of President. Nick Purpura is a registered Republican, and Ted Moran is a registered Democrat. Therefore, this objection is bi-partisan.
Purpura and Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesberg, who represents both men, delivered their objection personally to the Office of the Division of Elections, 225 W State Street, Trenton, NJ. CNAV was present. Purpura and Apuzzo wanted to see Secretary of State and Acting Governor Kim Guadagno. Instead, they saw Mr. Robert Giles, Director of the Division of Elections. Mr. Giles and his employees received the two men with courtesy and respect, and did not object to CNAV recording the conversation. Afterward, Apuzzo quipped, “We’re not political prisoners!”
Apuzzo handed Giles the objection and explained his grounds. They are:
- Obama has never shown that he was born in the United States, nor even who he really is.
- Obama’s father was never a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama cannot be a natural-born citizen.
Apuzzo referred to several cases on point. They include an Obama eligibility challenge in Alabama. Alabama Justice Tom Parker said that the challenger in that case had offered evidence
which, if presented to [an] appropriate forum…would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the “short form” and the “long form” birth certificates of Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.
Apuzzo told CNAV that he considered that his strongest single argument.
A unique challenge
Nick Purpura (R), and his attorney, Mario Apuzzo. Photo: CNAV
Giles told Apuzzo that no other parties had filed any Obama eligibility challenges, and so the Purpura-Moran challenge was the first. Giles then took Apuzzo’s submission with him and asked Apuzzo and Purpura to wait. After fifteen minutes, Giles told the two men that the Division of Elections not only accepted the challenge, but also placed it on the docket for a plenary hearing before an administrative law judge. This hearing will take place on Tuesday, April 10, at 10:00 a.m., at the Administrative Law offices in Quakerbridge, NJ.
Giles also said that this challenge was unique. Most ballot objections, he said, were on such grounds as not having enough signatures, or having improper signatures (non-registered voters, voters signing twice, etc.). This challenge went to eligibility, not qualification.
Apuzzo and Purpura expressed pleasant surprise at having the Division of Elections accept their Obama eligibility challenge so quickly. Apuzzo had expected to wait for several lawyers from the Attorney General’s Office to review the objection, and to have an answer by April 10. Apuzzo guessed that those OAG lawyers knew that an Obama eligibility challenge was coming and were ready to review it on the spot and decide whether it deserved a hearing. Obviously they said, “Yes.”
Giles also admitted this key fact: New Jersey has never formally found that Barack H. Obama is eligible to the office of President. No one has ever challenged the eligibility of Obama or any other Presidential candidate, so the State has never dealt with the Obama eligibility issue. For that reason, New Jersey has no earlier finding to rely on and must find Obama eligible, or not, in answer to this challenge.
Apuzzo told CNAV that the main strengths of his Obama eligibility challenge were:
- No one knows for sure who Barack H. Obama really is.
- A law-enforcement officer (Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona) has found probable cause to suspect that the White House Obama birth certificate document is a forgery.
- A ranking jurist in another State (Alabama Justice Tom Parker) has said that the birth certificate could never stand up in court.
Apuzzo also argues that Obama is not eligible because his father was not a citizen when Obama was born, and indeed never became one. He cited Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations, a reference that the Framers of the Constitution cited repeatedly. He also cited a letter from James Madison that flatly denied that English Common Law was the common law for the new federal government. The Constitution would have its own standard of common law.
Related:
- Obama: who is he?
- Obama birth certificate details
- Obama birth certificate petition
- Obama eligibility battle in Arizona legislature
- Obama birth certificate still suspect
- Obama born in Kenya?
- Presidential succession crisis
- Does anybody really know what time it is?
- Obama birth certificate investigation
- Obama birth certificate fraud analysis
- Obama birth certificate fraud
- Natural born citizen: what that means
- Obama eligibility: reactions to ruling
- Obama eligibility: flawed ruling
- Obama eligibility challenges multiply
- Obama eligibility challenges explode
- Obama eligibility challenges go forward
- Obama birth certificate does not satisfy
- Obama releases official-looking birth certificate
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378, 1936488299″ /]
Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.
-
Civilization4 days agoFederal government taking shape for next year
-
Civilization2 days agoKennedy to become Health Secretary
-
Constitution3 days agoMatt Gaetz getting the Trump treatment
-
Constitution4 days agoLinda Goudsmit on Dissent Television: ‘Space Is No Longer the Final Frontier—Reality Is’
-
Executive2 days agoIt’s Trump’s Transition and He Calls the Shots
-
Civilization3 days agoDisruptive force at the Pentagon
-
Executive4 days agoTrumping the Electric Vehicle Mandate
-
Civilization4 days agoIs There Such a Thing as the Jewish Vote?
I’m not sure why your friends are so surprised about the speed of processing: the NJ State Dept is pretty clear on this – read their “What to Expect?” section on their website (link to state.nj.us)
Unfortunately, the same section also states “In all challenges, the objector has the burden of proving that a nomination petition is invalid.”, so there’s no chance this is going anywhere because you have no proof whatsoever.
Proving that signatures are invalid, or insufficient, is one thing. Challenging eligibility is another.
Yes… I know. You have done neither.
There have been close to a hundred challenges to Obama’s eligibility and they’ve all been thrown out. Why do you expect this one to succeed?
On a related matter, are you aware of the common definition of insanity?
By your definition, anyone who applies for a job is insane, until one VP-HR says “Yes.” Ask Richard Nelson Bolles whether he agrees with Albert Einstein, or thinks that that’s a universal truth.
No. Anyone who repeatedly applied for the same job would be insane. Birthers keep trotting out the same discredited facts over and over again with the expectation of a different result. Orly Taitz has even managed the impressive feat of losing the argument to an empty chair. I have no idea why you think this time will be any different.
[…] issue was an absolute judicial travesty. Having this issue front and center in NJ makes my day. Obama eligibility challenge in New Jersey April 05, 2012 Terry A. Hurlbut Two New Jersey residents became the latest to file an Obama […]
[…] link to cnav.news… […]
[…] Two New Jersey residents, a Republican from Monmouth County and a Democrat from Ocean County, have filed an objection to Barack Obama’s name being placed on the New Jersey Democratic primary ballot and the general election ballot for the office of President of the United States, according to a story first reported on Conservative News and Views. […]
[…] Conservative News and Views […]
And Apuzzo rubs his palms together and watches his bank balance grow. One would have thought that by now, the birthers would have realised they don’t have a leg to stand on – especially when the so-called posse leader merely undertook the investigation so he could sell his book. No wonder Jerome Corsi was hanging on his coattails, so he can sell his book. Then again, he needs the money, after being fired for making stuff up.
However, given that the USA has more lawyers than the rest of the world combined, I’m sure there’s still plenty out there, lining up to part these suckers from their money. Hopefully, there’s some left after people like Zullo and Farah at WND have bilked them.
The only reason that Mr. Apuzzo does not bring a libel action against you for those remarks, is that he has neither the time, nor the funds, nor the inclination to divert his resources to such an action. That is especially true when he is in the USA and you are, from the way you spell verbs like “realize,” in the UK or elsewhere in the British Commonwealth. But before you go slinging accusations about against a solicitor/barrister in another country, you might wish to enquire of your own solicitor as to the wisdom of such mud-slinging.
For the benefit of the readers of this article (including those whom I welcome here from More Monmouth Musings), Mario Apuzzo is working this case pro bono. And a quick search on the name “Nick Purpura” on this site will reveal that Mr. Purpura and his friend Donald R. Laster Jr spent a lot of their own funds arguing, in pro se, the most comprehensive case ever filed against the health care reform bill.
They are doing it precisely because they are patriots. I don’t expect a “Limey” to understand patriotism. But maybe you’ll understand this: Mario Apuzzo is a first-generation American. He sees what is happening in his adopted country and wants to do something about it before it’s too late.
Two other reminders. First, neither Apuzzo nor Purpura nor Laster ever argued Obama’s place of birth, until Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Arizona, publicly said that he had probable cause to suspect that Obama’s supporting “document” was forged. Second, the first person to question Obama’s place of birth was Hillary Clinton, who was running against him. And the real reason that she stopped questioning it was that Obama and/or his surrogates jointly, or severally, offered her a big, juicy carrot and a big, deadly stick. The carrot: the Secretaryship of State. The stick: the murder of a political ally and a threat on her daughter’s life.
And now, “Sheriff Joe” is widening his investigation—to supporters of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Add to it that another sheriff, who attended Jerome Corsi’s presentation in Morristown, NJ, now agrees with Arpaio on the basis of what he saw and heard that night.
More likely he won’t seek a libel action because there’s nothing libelous in that post. Apuzzo is welcome to charge his gullible and credulous clients whatever he wants, and I hope his fees are nice and high.
In the UK we understand patriotism. You evidently don’t. It’s more than a matter of making unfounded racist allegations against your head of state, a fact that continually eludes you.
The truth is that the whole Arpaio “investigation” was a publicity stunt and money making exercise. Arpaio seeks to distract attention from the fact that his county is the only one in the state where violent crime is on the increase, and that he has implemented blatantly racist policies, to the extent that he is the focus of a DoJ investigation. The outcome of Arpaio’s “investigation” was a foregone conclusion, proved by the fact that Corsi was able to release a book detailing its findings the day before the posse reported!
You don’t like Obama. Fine. I just wish you and your friends would stop lying in a futile attempt to remove him.
That’s a lie. Mario Apuzzo is not charging anything for his services in this matter. Any suggestion that he is doing so, constitutes libel. The only thing that would make it non-actionable might be the “public figure” exception that we have over here.
And your canards against Sheriff Arpaio are, at best, a matter of misguided opinion, and at worst, another prize example of libel. Or they would be, were Arpaio not an elected officer. Public officials have to put up with such lies. But it’s my job to call them out when people tell them.
Not libel at all. For a comment to constitute libel, it must malicious or damaging, and my comment merely stated that he could charge what he likes. Where’s the libel there? If he’s working pro bono, good for him. Personally I’d have no compunctions about parting a fool from his money.
My comments on Arpaio are backed by solid facts. Here’s the data on the crime statistics (link to washingtonindependent.com) and here’s one instance of a note that the DoJ is considering taking him to court because of his egregious civil rights violations (link to abajournal.com).
In other words, you called me a liar when I am provably correct on all counts. I expect an apology.
The libel is that Mario Apuzzo is charging a fee for his services. That is what you said. And neither you nor Obama’s operatives have any facts to allege against Sheriff Arpaio, either. Crime statistics prove only one thing:
If Apuzzo is working pro bono, I’ll withdraw my comment. Otherwise, he’s in it for the money. Aren’t you even curious how much Orly Taitz charged for the Georgia case? It seems to me that birthers and Tea Partyers (is there a difference) have money to burn, what with eligibility cases, and recall cases and anti health care cases, and the only people winning are the lawyers. Or do they all work for free?
Ah yes, Jerome Corsi. The self-styled “investment banker” who still owes his former partners money after they sued him, the man fired for making stuff up and HSBC, the investigative journalist who is neither a journalist, nor does he investigate. This really is a credible source.
Not to mention the leader of the Posse. Described as a “retired detective” he doesn’t appear on New Jersey’s public records, so isn’t an ex-cop (unless he was booted from the force), nor is he a registered private eye… which interestingly enough, means that he’s breaking Arizona’s laws by conducting an investigation without being licensed. And to go and publish a book, with Corsi, before Joe makes his press conference – there’s a sign of an impartial, independent investigator.
All Sheriff Joe is doing, is jumping up and down, trying to get people to respond to him, because nearly everybody is – quite rightly – ignoring him. Sheriff Joe should rather focus on cleaning up the corruption and cronyism in his district before trying to garner nationwide attention.
Then you’d better withdraw it. And if you have any evidence, in the form of an invoice that Orly Taitz ever issued to any of her clients, forward it. I have already found you a most unreliable witness, and will apply the Aesop Rule, which we still have in our courts here in the States. That Rule states: any witness, who shall be found to have misrepresented material facts, shall never be considered reliable.
Are you sure about this “Aesop rule”? The only such rule I can find is something to do with “An Expert-system for Shipboard Obscuration Prediction” (AESOP), which seems to be something to do with navigating in fog. It’s unusual for Google to find nothing for this kind of thing.
Don’t you know about Aesop’s Fables? I refer here to the fable titled “The Boy Who Cried, ‘Wolf!'” American courts do have a rule that automatically discredits liars.
If I have proof he’s working for free, I’ll withdraw it. Ditto Taitz. Until I have that proof, I believe they are bilking their clients by charging for cases they cannot win. Another example – how much did Andrew Schlafly charge the NJ recall committee? Having see his performance before the NJSC, I hope it wasn’t much.
Convenient for you to ignore facts when they work against you. Like I said, do the research. Investigate Corsi, Zuppo and Sheriff Joe for yourself.
Personally, these are people I wouldn’t trust to buy a bottle of milk from the corner shop and return with the correct change. And yet, birthers are happy to take their word at face value.
Whatever happened to critical thinking? I for one would be really interested to hear that Obama was a fake – it would be our generation’s Watergate. But then you read about Sheriff Joe, using a copy of the certificate they downloaded off the net for their “forensic investigation” and you realise that it’s all a farce.
Admit it, all this is is the final frothing at the mouth, before you face another 4 years of the Black Man in the White House.
And that’s your biggest gripe with the man.
Andrew L. Schlafly did not charge for his services, either. I know the man personally. I personally interviewed all the subjects I wrote about. (Well, I didn’t interview Mr. Giles, but I did record him.)
Believe what you want. I have as much evidence as I need. All you have are wishful thinking and spite.
‘JT’ and ‘rpeh’ seem to be busy little bees. I never trust gritty, little creatures like these anyway…they’re always hiding behind initials or unidentifiable letters…and they are SOOOOO OBVIOUSLY ACTIVIST LEFTISTS and ‘PLANTS’! Pity! I was actually starting to find them rather amusing. But, alas! Terry Hurlbut is right! ! ! Obama IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE ‘POTUS’. in order to be POTUS, one must be the issue of TWO bona fide American Citizens of the USA…and, abviously, Daddy-Poo WAS NOT!…so there you go…CASE CLOSED!
wait… did Margaretdm accuse me of hiding behind initials? And the dm stands for?
And why would we be “plants” – it’s pretty clear we’re critical of Terry’s posts (as much as “pastor” Bickle doesn’t want us to be). Would you rather we merely toadied Terry along, or engage in some form of debate?
And sadly margaret, you’re wrong. If that was the case, then why was Obama’s father never mentioned by the birthers originally. No, forst it was all “ooh ooh he’s a Muslim born in Kenya!” then when the certificate was shown, it suddenly became “ooh! ooh! He’s not a natural born citizen”
The birthers’ own inconsistencies condemn them. Why don’t they just be honest and say ‘we don’t want a black man in the White House.” Because that’s the real issue here.
[…] Obama eligibility challenge in New Jersey […]
[…] details (h/t Conservative News and Views): Purpura and Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Jamesberg, who represents both men, delivered their […]
[…] Obama eligibility challenge in New Jersey […]
[…] Obama eligibility challenge in New Jersey […]
[…] Obama eligibility challenge in New Jersey […]
[…] Obama eligibility challenge in New Jersey […]