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.

 

BREAKING: Sheriff Joe Arpaio To Hold Press Conference On Obama’s Birth Certificate @ 4PM Face B.

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Im still missing something. The picture form factcheck shows the front of the certificate where there is no stamp. And that seal is raised/embossed and therefore the imprint would be on the back with the stamp as it is. So where am I missing something?


You are so close...I am going to hang with you.

YES! The seal was applied to the back of Obama's short form birth certificate. You are correct about that. When you look at the seal on the back of the document, it reads "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH • STATE OF HAWAII."

And the seal is debossed. Here is a photo from Factcheck of the actual seal on the BACK of the record:


It is DEBOSSED.

Factcheck published a photo of the FRONT OF THE RECORD, which shows the BACKSIDE OF THE SEAL, and they captioned it, "The raised seal." Here is that photo:


As you can see, the BACKSIDE OF THE SEAL IS THE SIDE THAT IS RAISED/EMBOSSED. Even Factcheck agrees that is the side that is raised. The backside reads "IIAWAH FO ETATS • HTLAEH FO TNEMTRAPED," with all the letters in reverse. That is the BACKSIDE OF THE SEAL.

Here is a screenshot of that photo and Factcheck's errant caption:


***

It's the front of the seal that should be raised/embossed, not the backside.

Obama's short form bears a fraudulent debossed seal on the back of the document.

Does this clear it up for you?

edit on 14-12-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Who said I was smarter, I said we are. We are stronger when we put it in the forum, and start the sometimes painful process of dissection.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Im still missing something. The picture form factcheck shows the front of the certificate where there is no stamp. And that seal is raised/embossed and therefore the imprint would be on the back with the stamp as it is. So where am I missing something?



Also, you are incorrect in saying that there is a RAISED/EMBOSSED seal on the BACK of Obama's short form.

No such thing exists on the BACK of the document.

Nope.

The bits that look 'raised' are on the front of the document -- the raised bits are THE BACKSIDE OF THE SEAL.

The seal should be RAISED ON THE BACK OF THE DOCUMENT. The side you read the seal from. The seal is DEBOSSED on the back of the document.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I was trying to say it was raised/embossed on the front


But I see what your saying on the larger point. The seal should look raised on the back, not the front, right?



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32

Yep.




Believe it or not, it would be impossible to produce the opposite effect 'accidentally.'

Different dies need to be cast for the processes of embossing and debossing an image.

The inverse effect cannot happen accidentally and the processes are unique from one another.

Obama's short form has a debossment, not an embossment. Therefore, the seal is fraudulent according to every statement the HDOH has made about their official seal and pursuant to the HDOH Rules and Regulations...see my post on that here: Link




edit on 14-12-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

And that is why it took three years for anyone to notice.

So very tricky.

You see what looks to be an embossed seal...and you just think you are seeing an embossed seal, and not the backside of a debossed seal.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Why on earth would there be such a simple mistake?



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Hence your monopoly money comparison.

If they had used an official seal they could have been prosecuted for fraud.

Since the seal does NOT match the Hawaii Department of Health regulations the for official seal, any document the seal is affixed to is not an official document.

They pulled a fast one and we've had an illegitimate president for 8 years.

Our nation has engaged in fraud with the world.

 


a reply to: seasonal

It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

What MME has laid out shows that there are many parties involved in the scheme.

factcheck.org defrauded congress, and everything flowed from there.

Once it reached a certain point, they were all in and left themselves no way to back out.

Too late now to do anything about it ither than observe and make noise.
edit on 14-12-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: Additional comment



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

These people will not go down for fraud. They are above the law, there is nothing, and I mean nothing they could do to get in any sort of trouble. Nothing.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

See J&C's comment.

Reproducing the official seal fraudulently is a felony. Making one that does not fit the official description is not. No one could claim to be defrauded by a debossed seal when the HDOH publishes its regulations that clearly state their official seal is raised/embossed:

Page 19 in the pdf, Regulation 2.4, B(1)(b):

Hawaii Public Health Regulations, Chapter 8b

2.4 Issuance of Certified Copies of Vital Records
B. Standards for Copies of Vital Records
(1) Standard Copy
(b) Form of certification. Standard certified copies shall contain an appropriate certification statement over the signature of the registrar having custody of the record and be impressed with the RAISED seal of the issuing office. The signature may be photographed or entered by mechanical means. The paper shall display the official seal of the Department of Health or the seal of the State.


Link


The agency rules, page 6, Section 11-1-2(b):



(b) The official seal of the department of health shall be embossed near the signature of the director of health to verify commissions of appointment of deputy directors and notaries public, certificates, and other formal official documents on which the official seal has been customarily used or is appropriate to be used, as the director of health may determine on a case-by-case basis.


Link

edit on 14-12-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Yes.

Nothing to do but maybe not let it go unsaid..unexplained.

I saw what they did there.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ranger351

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: xuenchen
I hope they were able to get the sealed court documents on the Hawaiian adoption.



The question is:

Does a foreign born adoptee in 1961 automatically become a natural born citizen?




Yes. International adoptions are covered by the Hague Convention, of which the US is a signatory. The child automatically receives an IH-3 visa to enter the country and automatically becomes a citizen upon arrival.


Citizen yes, natural born... Not thinking it's so, unless mother was a US citizen, but I am not an expert or lawyer, so I'm just offering my take on it


I am a lawyer and by law an adopted child has the same status as if he or she were the biological child of the adoptive parents, so, yes, natural born citizen.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Sorry, it's getting old..painful indeed.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: xuenchen
I hope they were able to get the sealed court documents on the Hawaiian adoption.



The question is:

Does a foreign born adoptee in 1961 automatically become a natural born citizen?




Yes. International adoptions are covered by the Hague Convention, of which the US is a signatory. The child automatically receives an IH-3 visa to enter the country and automatically becomes a citizen upon arrival.


Actually, since the event happened in 1961, and the USA did not become a signatory until 1994, then NO.
"The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Convention) is an international agreement to safeguard intercountry adoptions. Concluded on May 29, 1993 in The Hague, the Netherlands, the Convention establishes international standards of practices for intercountry adoptions. The United States signed the Convention in 1994, and the Convention entered into force for the United States on April 1, 2008."
travel.state.gov...



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Did I fall through a wormhole and end up in 2008? 2012?

...oh right, because he's not leaving office and will stay on for a 3rd term?...I forgot.

I am just curious, when will people let this drop?



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leonidas
I am just curious, when will people let this drop?


Maybe after we are allowed to actually discuss it without being marginalized, ridiculed, racebaited, and shamed.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Cool, that it is against the law. But as you and I know there is something that doesn't add up.

But the people who did the deed will never get into any trouble. Name any crime, any. No matter how bad, no matter the evidence, they will never pay for a crime, ever. The proof is in the info you have.

Imagine, the proof is looking at us right in the face, and who is talking about it? We are and a sheriff that will be poo poo'd as a nut.
And imagine what it takes to be able to just have everyone ignore the fact that something isn't right with the paperwork, and it took YEARS to get a half a$$ed document. Again imagine no one is talking about it. No one.



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: Ranger351

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: xuenchen
I hope they were able to get the sealed court documents on the Hawaiian adoption.



The question is:

Does a foreign born adoptee in 1961 automatically become a natural born citizen?




Yes. International adoptions are covered by the Hague Convention, of which the US is a signatory. The child automatically receives an IH-3 visa to enter the country and automatically becomes a citizen upon arrival.


Citizen yes, natural born... Not thinking it's so, unless mother was a US citizen, but I am not an expert or lawyer, so I'm just offering my take on it


I am a lawyer and by law an adopted child has the same status as if he or she were the biological child of the adoptive parents, so, yes, natural born citizen.


The adoption court orders also authorize a birth certificate to be issued also.

Correct?

And the BC may not indicate an adoption ?

Remember this is in Hawaii in 1961 before they changed the laws in the mid 1960s.




posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Leonidas

Do you think that next time the pres should be vetted before election? Not after the election. Oops I just said a racist thingy, right.
edit on 14-12-2016 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Cool, that it is against the law. But as you and I know there is something that doesn't add up.

But the people who did the deed will never get into any trouble. Name any crime, any. No matter how bad, no matter the evidence, they will never pay for a crime, ever. The proof is in the info you have.

Imagine, the proof is looking at us right in the face, and who is talking about it? We are and a sheriff that will be poo poo'd as a nut.
And imagine what it takes to be able to just have everyone ignore the fact that something isn't right with the paperwork, and it took YEARS to get a half a$$ed document. Again imagine no one is talking about it. No one.


Arpaio will never bring up the blatant evidence I have shown. IMO, he is an agent provocateur that peddles disinfo and acts as a distraction from this evidence.

I think Sheriff Joe is a former dirty DEA agent, CIA, and serves a role to look the other way while the shadow government runs drugs over the border. My opinion after researching him for the last five years. I like this exposé on him: Link

ETA: link is not working so quote this comment and copy the link if you want to read it.
edit on 14-12-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join