.
News Alert
VIDEO: Jersey Shore Beach Conditions And Traffic

Judge Rules Against Obama Objectors

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.

In what attorney Mario Apuzzo is calling a "sham of justice," a state judge has ruled against objectors seeking to remove President Barack 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 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.

monster June 05, 2012 at 04:00 AM
Bless your heart...you have issues. Why do YOU think anything you say is going to impact my decision making? I decide for myself and my children. You want to talk about anacondas squeezing the life out of me? The anaconda doesn't have to because my kids are doing it all by themselves. Soccer practice, dance recitals, piano recitals, Girls on the Run, play dates, homework, PTO bullsmacky, volunteering at shelters, putting meals on the table, putting grouchy kids to sleep. I LOVE my life. With all of the chaos and drama and goodnight kisses, I couldn't ask for a better life, (well unless I could do the Jedi mind trick on you.). Two laws of the land? Funny I thought there were a couple wrong, I can admit that I'm not as up to date on the birther issues. I just find it a bit hardcore to suggest its all a shame. If you read theses posts you'll see the several different interpretations of the constitution; but I'm supposed to believe what you say over anyone else. I'm very sorry, because you annoy me on every level. I know I'm not liked by most people on this site, that's okay. I tell my children daily they weren't put on this earth to be liked by everyone, nor do they need to like anyone in return. I know I'm being harsh, but your reasoning and what you believe is logical is just off, by any standard. Good night, Susan.
monster June 05, 2012 at 04:02 AM
My bad, a few misspellings, and chunky sentences. My bad.
Ed Brotherton June 05, 2012 at 06:24 AM
Monster - You ask "Why do YOU think anything you say is going to impact my decision making? It's because I assume you have the ability to critically think. Are you saying that there is nothing I can possibly say even if YOU see it as having some validity that will change your decision making? That doesn't sound healthy to me. I'm willing to change my view if someone would simply point out the actual flaw in my arguments verses attacking my character. My goal is not to invalidate you or anyone else here in anyway but just provide data so people can make up their own minds. I have looked at the many other posts on here with regards to the their interpretation of the natural born citizenship provision. Unfortunately you can tell most of the them don't know how to make distinction between natural born citizenship and U.S. Citizenship. One is a civic status while the other is a political status. Then you have those quoting the Wong Ark case which has to do with the 14th amendment citizeship and absolutely nothing to do with natural born under article 2 section 1 clause 5. My view of the natural born citizenship is not my opinion I'm relying on the Supreme Courts interpretation, historical analysis, John Jay's letter he wrote to George Washington on the issue, as well as the original intent of the framers. Is there something else I should be relying on? If so, please tell me.
Ed Brotherton June 05, 2012 at 06:29 AM
It's all good. I really wish you knew me because I honestly think you and I would get along pretty well, even if we don't agree on everything. The trouble with these posts is that you can't really emote. So things come off in ways that are not intended.
Susan June 05, 2012 at 10:25 AM
Monster it's not what I say nor "my" beliefs. I continue to suggest you educate yourself on the FACTS. If not for yourself then do it for your children. As their future is at risk of losing many of the freedoms that many men and women fought and died for in this great country. The birther issue is only one of many questionable and ethical issues that have been raised, researched and revealed about this administration. I think I annoy you because you don't want to hear the truth it is easier to live for most to live in a bubble of denial.

Boards

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 »