Connect with us


Obama eligibility: NJ appeal rejected



The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution.

A three-judge panel rejected New Jersey’s Obama eligibility challenge within twenty-four hours of hearing oral argument.

A quick decision

The decision by the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court was as terse as it was swift. It came down one day after the oral argument, and ran to only three pages. The substance of the decision ran like this:

We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12,2012.

The court cited this rule that lets the Appellate Division affirm a lower court without an opinion.

The court also cited this decision by Judge Masin. Masin handed this down on April 10, after a three-hour hearing.

Obama eligibility challenger reacts

Nick Purpura and Mario Apuzzo file an Obama eligibility challenge in New Jersey

Nick Purpura (R), and his attorney, Mario Apuzzo. Photo: CNAV

Nick Purpura, the lead plaintiff/appellant in the case, reacted in outrage.

What do they mean, “ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion”? What thought? There was no evidence! How could anyone rule that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii when there was never any evidence?

In the course of that hearing, Purpura’s lawyer, Mario Apuzzo, tried to call a witness to show that the White House PDF file, showing what looks like a birth certificate for Barack Obama, was a forgery. Judge Masin disallowed the witness after Alexandra Hill, arguing for Obama, conceded that she would not introduce the birth certificate into evidence. In fact, she never introduced any evidence to show Barack Obama’s identity or birthplace. Judge Masin, turning to Apuzzo, then said,


I’ve just won your case for you, if you prevail on the question of Obama’s obligation to prove his eligibility.

Masin meant by that, that the defense counsel would not introduce that White House PDF file or any other purported copy of the Obama birth certificate. Therefore, Apuzzo need not call his witness.

Nevertheless, Masin decided, hours later, to presume that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and was therefore a natural born citizen. He also ruled that Obama, and his surrogates, need not show eligibility to nominate him in a primary.

Apuzzo carefully documented, in his brief, that Masin did not adequately follow New Jersey law. That law says that anyone running for office in a New Jersey election must qualify to hold that office. Barack Obama has not made any kind of showing. No Obama eligibility evidence is on file, even from the Election of 2008. Elections Division Director Robert Giles said that to Apuzzo and Purpura on the day they filed their challenge.

In a reply letter the day before the argument, Apuzzo attacked the respondents’ argument that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and that the New Jersey Secretary of State lacked discretion in ballot placement for Presidential elections. He also reiterated the heart of his Obama eligibility challenge: that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen.

The Attorney General’s office had also said that Purpura and Moran had waited to long to act. At oral argument, Judge Clarkson Fisher hinted at that by saying that the Elections Division had already sent printed ballots to various county clerks. Apuzzo refused to concede that, but left it to the court to prescribe a remedy.


The appellate decision said nothing about anyone acting too late. But it ignored all of Apuzzo’s arguments, and said nothing to explain its decision beyond saying that Apuzzo’s argument was without merit. Purpura protested that the court violated his right of due process of law. He said that a court must say why an argument is without merit.

Apuzzo was not available for comment. Purpura vowed to appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court.


ARVE Error: need id and provider

[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″ /]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
+ posts

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[…] NJ appeal rejected […]

[…] NJ appeal rejected […]

[…] NJ appeal rejected […]

[…] NJ appeal rejected […]

[…] NJ appeal rejected […]

[…] NJ appeal rejected […]


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x