Mario Apuzzo, Esq.185 Gatzmer AvenueJamesburg, New Jersey 08831(732) 521-1900Attorney for Petitioners Objectors_______________________STATE OF NEW JERSEYOFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAWOAL DKT. NO. STE 04534-12NICHOLAS E. PURPURA EXCEPTIONS TOAND THEODORE T. MORAN, INITIAL DECISIONPetitioners,v.BARACK OBAMA,Respondent.
STATEMENTOFPROCEDURE
Petitioners argued that Candidate Barack Obama has not met hisburden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballotby showing that he is a “natural born Citizen.” We argued that he has notpresented any evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing whohe is and that he was born in the United States. We also argued that as amatter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born toa father who was not a U.S. citizen.
2
Obama’s counsel made a motion to dismiss the Objection in itsentirety. She argued that it was not relevant to being placed on the ballotwhether Mr. Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” where he was born, andwhether he was born to U.S. citizen parents. She said that no law in NewJersey obligated him to produce any such evidence in order to get on theprimary ballot. We argued that Mr. Obama under the Constitution has to bea “natural born Citizen.” We argued that under New Jersey law (the stateconstitution, statutes, and case law), Mr. Obama must show that he isqualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing thathe is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who heis, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. Weargued that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to placeany ineligible candidates on the election ballot. Judge Masin deniedObama’s motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.After calling to the witness stand Mr. Moran and Mr. Purpura, whogave testimony as to why they brought the ballot challenge, and introducingdocuments showing there is a question as to Mr. Obama’s identity,petitioners called Brian Wilcox to testify as an internet image expert. Mr.Wilcox was going to testify on how the Obama April 27, 2011, long-form
3
birth certificate has been altered and manipulated either by computersoftware or by a human or both, producing a forged documents, and thatsince the image is not reliable, we need to see the original paper version.Respondent’s lawyer objected to the proffered testimony. Petitioners thenoffered that they would not need to have Mr. Wilcox testify, provided thatObama stipulated that the internet image of his birth certificate could not beused as evidence by either Judge Masin or the New Jersey Secretary of States and that he presented to the court or the Secretary of State no otherevidence of his identity or place of birth. Judge Masin also asked Obama’sattorney whether she would so stipulate. She did so stipulate, agreeing thatboth the court and the Secretary of State cannot rely on the internet birthcertificate as evidence of Obama’s place of birth and that Obama hasproduced no other evidence to the court regarding his place of birth. Shealso argued that Obama has no legal obligation to produce any suchevidence to get on the primary ballot. Judge Masin then took the issue underadvisement. Having produced absolutely no evidence of his eligibility forthe Office of President, Judge Masin was then tasked with deciding whetheras a matter of law Obama has a legal duty to produce such evidence beforehe may be placed on the New Jersey ballot in light of the pending objectionfiled against him.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Purpura-Moran Exceptions to Initial Decision 4-10-12
3.2K
Reads
0
Readcasts
24.4K
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
