It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lawyer Who Beat the NSA Files Obama 'Deportation Petition'

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Her parents were citizens of Sweden. Therefore she was a citizen of both Sweden and the US. Ergo she was a dual citizen.

Of course we can always just look at James Buchanan and Chester A. Arthur. Both dual citizens. Both Presidents




posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: guohua

Birther stuff again???

Come on. There are many many many better angles to attack 0bama on. All better then Birther stuff.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I read the complaint, the transcript, and the summary finding. Not once is dual-citizenship mentioned. Not once. The summary states very clearly that she was a US citizen and never lost that status. It makes absolutely no mention of her being a dual citizen.

As for her parents being Swedish that is true, but that does not automatically grant her dual citizenship. She could have applied for citizenship in Sweden, she could have ignored the need to return to the US at the age of maturity, or she could have expatriated herself, any of which would have made her a citizen of Sweden. But she did not.

For the record: you keep insisting that dual citizenship does not stop someone from becoming president. You keep insisting that the Constitution of the United States says so. For the record: I never said a dual citizen could not be president. I only said the Constitution says nothing about being a dual citizen and being president. And it doesn't. You can imply that it does. You can say you read it between the lines. You can look at it any way you want. But the Constitution does not list dual citizenship as a qualifier or disqualifier for the office of president. That is all I said and that is what I will continue to say until the Constitution is changed to read otherwise.


edit on 9-10-2014 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
It makes absolutely no mention of her being a dual citizen.


That is because her being a dual citizen has nothing at all to do with the USA or the USA courts - it has to do with another country. Thus a dual citizen can be POTUS.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

No that is NOT the reason it makes no mention of it. It makes no mention of it because she WAS NOT A DUAL CITIZEN. See above and then don't look for another response from me.


edit on 9-10-2014 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: hellobruce

No that is NOT the reason it makes no mention of it.


Yes it is - just why do you think someone being a dual citizen has anything to do with the USA? Especially any country can declare someone a citizen.

You are really very confused.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I mentioned the source of an examination of the BC as being on youtube. People here should be smart enough to find it.

The source of the document is www.whitehouse.gov. There is a document there that the website states very clearly was scanned from Obama's birth certificate. It is offered on the website as a link and also a downloadable pdf.

If you have ever scanned a document you know that hidden layers in the document are not also scanned in. A scan is nothing more than an image file. It has no memory of layers or edits to the document. It is simply an image of the document as it appears at that time. The downloaded pdf has layers. Layers that can still be turned on and off. Layers that show very nicely what was original on that BC and what was added. The person examing the pdf offered by www.whitehouse.gov was very thorough in describing the edits to the document. Look at the video, listen to it, download it and look at it yourself. Then come here and discuss it. Don't just dismiss it as birther BS when you can offer nothing more than an opinion and circumstantial evidence at best to the contrary.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
If you have ever scanned a document you know that hidden layers in the document are not also scanned in. A scan is nothing more than an image file.


More birther BS - they have obviously never scanned a document with a Xerox WorkCentre 7535 to know the claims about layers etc are just more birther stories. Which is why every attempt in court to show Obama's BC is a fake were thrown out, the "experts" taken to court were not really experts at all.

Remember this?

In the case of Farrar v. Obama Orly Taitz presented witnesses, among them Douglas Vogt and Felicito Papa, who testified to the alleged forgery of the LFBC. She also presented exhibits including the analysis of Paul Irey. Judge Malihi, in his order, stated that he had decided the case “on the merits of their arguments and evidence”. In regard to the allegations of forgery, Judge Malihi said: “The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations.”



www.obamaconspiracy.org...

but it turns out that when a paper birth certificate is scanned with a Xerox WorkCentre 7535, we see the very same thing! Below are the certificate numbers as they appear in separate PDF layers, the White House PDF on the left and Reality Check’s scan to PDF from a Xerox machine on the right: WHv7535 1 WHv7535 2 Isn’t that remarkable? What are the chances that a forger would divide the number in exactly the same way and put the parts in exactly the same layers that an office machine automatically does? Pretty darned small, I think.


Of course you will not read about this on birther websites!
edit on 9-10-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

But

But But

All they had to do was post up a JPG file instead of a PDF and no problem.

But that would have altered their controlled opposition plan wouldn't it.

They HAD to create the illusions ahead of the controlled lawsuits.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
All they had to do was post up a JPG file instead of a PDF and no problem.


No, the problem is not any bit of paper Obama has, but the fact that he was elected President. Twice.

That is what birthers hate, hence their silly lawsuits against him. The lawsuits are not controlled, one only has to look at them to see birthers have no clue at all how things work, but their hatred shows through them.

One only has to look at the Birther Scorecard to see how silly their court cases actually were, they have lost evvery single case so far, 220 of them.
tesibria.typepad.com...
edit on 9-10-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

More liberal BS. Some scanners can create empty bitmap layers. They do not segregate one text character out of a word to a different layer than the characters on either side of it. That is not how a scanner works. I know...let me guess...its a birther conspiracy to describe how scanners actually work... right? And to match the effects shown on that document it had to be scanned upside down, rotated, and scaled, just to present a similar appearance. Not a duplicate appearance, similar. There is a difference. The white house posted both an image file and a pdf for download. The pdf maintained the record of the edits to the document. Watch the video. See for yourself. Then come back here and spew liberal lies and hate.

For everything you call birther BS I can find something I could call liberal BS. The truth of the matter is, you don't know if that document is real or not. Neither do I. You want so desparately to believe its real that there is no amount of proof that will ever convince you otherwise. I choose not to blindly believe either side. I see reason to doubt whether that document is real or not. There are several curious elements to the whole ordeal that remain unanswered. Why did it take so long for Obama to release his BC? I could show mine any time I wanted to. Most people probably could. Why did it take him so long to show a copy? And why did it take until after he personally went to Hawaii on one of many vacations? Why did a scanner split words into individual characters and put them on different layers in a pdf file? (and I have run many different makes and models of scanners both large and small scale and I have never seen one do that, intentionally or otherwise)

Oh, there is one other thing you could explain. I find a very interesting video on youtube and you immediately dismiss it without even looking at it because its on youtube. Yet you find a blog by a liberal that just happens to spew exactly the type of BS you are looking for and you immediately stand by it and swear its true. How does that work? You found some blogger, Lord knows they wouldn't lie to achieve a goal... and you sound like you would put your life on the line to back up whatever that idiot said. But you cant even look at the evidence provided by an opposing view. And you have the gall to sit there insulting me because I don't want to accept your version of the truth?

How wonderful it must be to live in a world where you can make up the rules as you go along and change them whenever its convenient and ignore whatever doesn't fit your warped little view. There is a great big world out there that extends well beyond your hate for conservatives. But, you wont read about that on a liberal blogger site will you...



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Yet you find a blog by a liberal that just happens to spew exactly the type of BS you are looking for and you immediately stand by it and swear its true.


Funny how you ignored the fact that

In regard to the allegations of forgery, Judge Malihi said: “The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs’ allegations.”


Birthers took their silly evidence of a forgery to court and it was thrown out as it was worthless, and the "experts" were not really experts at all.


How wonderful it must be to live in a world where you can make up the rules as you go along and change them whenever its convenient and ignore whatever doesn't fit your warped little view.


That is the world birthers live in, they hate the fact that Obama is the legal POTUS, having been elected twice. They want to make up rules as to what a natural born citizen actually is, they ignore court rulings that state Obama is a natural born US citizen, they want to ignore the Hawaiian Dept Of Health having issued Obama's BC's.

Their hatred knows no bounds.



posted on Oct, 9 2014 @ 11:17 PM
link   

a reply to: hellobruce

Birthers took their silly evidence of a forgery to court and it was thrown out as it was worthless, and the "experts" were not really experts at all.


Ahoy !!

A perfect example of the controlled opposition.

What "normal" lawyer would even bring such a case to court?

Perfecto Garcia




posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel


Why did it take so long for Obama to release his BC? I could show mine any time I wanted to. Most people probably could. Why did it take him so long to show a copy


During his initial campaign he had a copy of his birth certificate at his campaign headquarters. He even invited journalists to come and look at it. Of course this copy wasn't good enough for the birthers though.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel




Why did a scanner split words into individual characters and put them on different layers in a pdf file? (and I have run many different makes and models of scanners both large and small scale and I have never seen one do that, intentionally or otherwise)


Optical Character Recognition





Optical character recognition, usually abbreviated to OCR, is the mechanical or electronic conversion of scanned or photographed images of typewritten or printed text into machine-encoded/computer-readable text. It is widely used as a form of data entry from some sort of original paper data source, whether passport documents, invoices, bank statement, receipts, business card, mail, or any number of printed records. It is a common method of digitizing printed texts so that they can be electronically edited, searched, stored more compactly, displayed on-line, and used in machine processes such as machine translation, text-to-speech, key data extraction and text mining. OCR is a field of research in pattern recognition, artificial intelligence and computer vision. Early versions needed to be programmed with images of each character, and worked on one font at a time. "Intelligent" systems with a high degree of recognition accuracy for most fonts are now common. Some commercial systems are capable of reproducing formatted output that closely approximates the original scanned page including images, columns and other non-textual components.


You have no idea what you are talking about, but I'm sure that won't stop you.
edit on 10-10-2014 by Connector because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-10-2014 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Connector

See, here is the problem. I do know what I am talking about. I didn't ask how a scanner could create text. I know what OCR is and how it works. What I asked, something that hasn't been answered yet, is how a scanner can split individual characters out of a word and place them on separate layers. That statement was made in regards to a previous statement made by libtard that insists a scanner, in particular the Xerox 7535 model, will scan a printed adobe illustrator file and somehow manage to recreate all the layers and revision history in the new file.

BTW, I spoke to "Adrian" at Xerox technical support today about this very situation. He stated very clearly that Xerox scanners do not work that way. They create an image of the document scanned. The only other thing they do, as you mentioned, is OCR, which would not explain how one character out of a word ends up on a different layer in a different color in a scanned document exported in pdf format.

Let me guess...he also doesn't know what he is talking about and must be a birther too, right?



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I didn't ignore anything. You post a response talking about some alleged evidence that was allegedly presented to a judge who dismissed it. What evidence are you talking about? Is it the same evidence I am talking about? Did you even bother to look? Funny how you ignored that part...

I live in the real world where people are intelligent enough to express views and not summarily dismiss them because they don't toe the party line. You haven't had one original thought through all of this. You present a transcript of a phone call that you allege supports your point of view yet when I debunk the interpretation you choose not to respond. Then without even looking at my evidence you suggest that whatever libtard source you cited is referring to the exact same evidence you didn't even bother to look at. Typical libtard evasion tactics. Pathetic.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Site your reference.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Connector

See, here is the problem. I do know what I am talking about.


No you do not - if you had followed my link you would have seen that you are again wrong, like all birthers.

Also remember your silly claims have been bought up in court, and thrown out as they were not valid. Also don't you think a real document expert would have noticed it, and been used in court?


edit on 10-10-2014 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I will use the libtard tactic here and respond thusly: that judge was influenced by some political agenda and probably didn't even look at the evidence...

Did I do it right?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join