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.

 

Major Stefan Frederick Cook v [et. al] (RE: Obama eligibility - Dr. Taitz)

page: 11
55
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by mental modulator

I wanted YOU to think, not toss propaganda links to me, these addresses do not even exist madam, WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF USING AN ADDRESS THAT DOES NOT EVEN EXIST?

Have fun, I prefer monopoly


To insure that no untoward mail would arrive there that raises questions.

Next, please.


DO you think we live in 1857???

There would be ZERO benefit in creating a non existent address...
Without benefit what is the motive?

Mail?

The private industry and government have had tools to substantiate the existence of an actual address for ALL of Obama's adult life, especially the Social Security administration.

Are you kidding?


And by NEXT did you mean your next shot of Kool Adie and jack?




posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Are you going to actually give me some constitutional evidence now on the contrary to what I posted or are you going to ignore it like everybody else. If your constitutional findings were ignored surely I would be getting a reply from you opposing what I posted.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Whats more funny, these folks complain that the short form isnt enough or a fake despite confirmation by the proper authorities including the state of Hawaiia,


I've heard quite a lot about this "confirmation by the state", but despite several searches have been unable to find it. Can you please provide a link to any such Official Confirmation?



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Shame on all of us for becoming the petty and vendictive, narrow minded fools and simpletons devoid of common sense, empathy and compassion our forefathers fought so hard and died in vain to attempt to perpetuate something far grander and better that most of you now consider simply an inconvenience and an impedement to ego and inflated self worth.

How sad when the guillotine does claim it's bloody prize as it always has and always shall, there will likely hardly be a head left attached in what was once the home and the land of the free and the brave, now to cowardly from the head down to even display a simple document for public inspection.


wow...excellet post my friend....excellent.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JulieMills

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Shame on all of us for becoming the petty and vendictive, narrow minded fools and simpletons devoid of common sense, empathy and compassion our forefathers fought so hard and died in vain to attempt to perpetuate something far grander and better that most of you now consider simply an inconvenience and an impedement to ego and inflated self worth.

How sad when the guillotine does claim it's bloody prize as it always has and always shall, there will likely hardly be a head left attached in what was once the home and the land of the free and the brave, now to cowardly from the head down to even display a simple document for public inspection.


wow...excellet post my friend....excellent.


Yes I think an Eagle shot right out of my backside with that one...



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Dbriefed
 





Oh good! Cause everyone knows how well a coup d'état would go over.
Are you seriously advocating a coup d'état? Sorry man I would fight with my last breath before letting the military run this country.


Fighting to your last breath is always an option. Welcome to the Revolution. Or should I more properly call it a counter-revolution?

[edit on 2009/7/13 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Dbriefed
 





Oh good! Cause everyone knows how well a coup d'état would go over.
Are you seriously advocating a coup d'état? Sorry man I would fight with my last breath before letting the military run this country.


Fighting to your last breath is always an option. Welcome to the Revolution. Or should I more properly call it a counter-revolution?


I call it welcome the W creation

GITMO



[edit on 12-7-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
I've heard quite a lot about this "confirmation by the state", but despite several searches have been unable to find it.


liar, Iv posted it three times in this thread alone. I'll repeat it for you again since you love to just look over it:


To verify we did indeed have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.
"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008.

www.politifact.com...
These guys are more than qualified in the matter to verify Obamas short form birth certificate, in addition politifact among the other fact checkers and WND themselves to name afew have all verified the short form birth certificate.

Now, Im going to ask you again, regarding the lawsuits below tell me one by one where the constitutional evidence on the contrary was incorrect:


One lawsuit said during the 60's foreign children were able to attain a Hawaiian birth certificate; truth is the law regarding that only came in place following 1982, before that you had to have been born in the US to have attained a birth certificate.

Another past lawsuit argued Obama attained Indonesia citizenship, due to Indonesian laws you had to give up your US citizenship thus making Obama ineligible, however the laws at the time of Indonesia disprove this fact as Obama was too old to automatically gain Indonesian citizenship as he resided there less than 6 years, over the age of 5. In addition his natural born citizenship does not recognize the laws of other nations so it was irrelevant. Regarding his attendance in public school his step father obviously lied because the laws did not allow under any circumstance Obama to gain Indonesian citizenship.

Yet another lawsuit came out arguing his Kenyan/British dual citizenship where the constitution forbids.... however Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship at the age of 21 as he did not give up his natural born American citizenship. The laws of Kenya at the time were also not recognizing by the US in anyway thus the laws there did not affect Obama. The constitution also states dual citizenship at the time of running for the presidency.

And then there was one lawsuit that argued that his mother was too young to pass her citizenship on to Obama when he was born.... yet Obama was born on US soil in any case so he is by all means natural born, in addition the marriage of his mother and father was not valid as his father was already married in Kenya, so any complications there don’t work out. This notion that somehow Miss Dunham went to Kenya at such a young age, 8-9 months pregnant, had Obama there, then rushed back makes no sense, especially considering his announcement in the Hawaiian papers at the time, that required you to have a birth certificate.

The only arguments that are left apart from the debunked ones are speculative at best. His trip to Pakistan to which Pakistan actually did not ban US tourists as many claimed. His supposed grandmother’s audio tape which actually turned out to be his estranged step-grandmother who said Barrack Obama senior was born in Kenya. The of course, there is the allegations of his deception, his multiple identities, which really go around the realm of story telling. Obama had another name before, yet him as a child can hardly be blamed for the actions of his folks.

Suspecting him of being ineligible merely before you have not seen more documents from him doesnt provide sufficient evidence that he was ineligible.


Stop dodging it and tell me where constitutionally president Obama is ineligible.

If you have constitutional evidence to counter me here Im waiting.

[edit on 12-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

The lawsuits you speak of that were dismissed before hearing were the ones that demanded Obamas release of his long form birth certificate, which by Hawaii law nobody but a relative or Obama himself can release. Most of the other lawsuits were reviewed then dismissed because of the above.


this is news to me. could you provide details as to which court and the date of cases that were dismissed so i can look up details? i wasn't aware than anything had actually come up before a judge. I though everything so far has been refused because of lack of standing of the petitioner rather than on the basis of quality of evidence.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by earlywatcher
 


Heres one example, Chief justice Roberts acceptd 'eligibility' petition,
Roberts agreed to read Obama docs, consider WND's 330,000 signers, after having a look at the arguments put forth he came to the conclusion that under law nobody but Obama himself can attain his birth certificate, the constitutional evidence as well had been debunked.

Search chief justice Roberts, there are other examples of the lawsuits being dismissed on the grounds of lack of standing, evidence, one of them from Phillip berg. He failed to prove constitutionally and by law Obamas ineligibility.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by earlywatcher
 


My post above highlighted a number of reasons why constitutionally the lawsuits failed to come through, if you feel they were dismissed wrong let me know with reference from the constitution. Your buddy here like the rest behind this conspiracy had nothing to show for but talk.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
What happened earlywatcher, nenothtu? You had your chance to give me this news breaking evidence opposing mine, where is it? I asked you so where ya'll go to?

Your very happy to post in droves "talk" over these lawsuits and this conspiracy but when asked to come up with constitutional evidence, with real evidence you folks ignore and run away.

And your asking me why these lawsuits fail to get anywhere.

[edit on 12-7-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
One lawsuit said during the 60's foreign children were able to attain a Hawaiian birth certificate; truth is the law regarding that only came in place following 1982, before that you had to have been born in the US to have attained a birth certificate.


I'll have to grant that, pending further investigation. I've not researched that particular law, but I suppose I will now. If so, it wouldn't necessarily preclude false reporting, but that would be a stretch. Folks don't tell lies, do they?



Another past lawsuit argued Obama attained Indonesia citizenship, due to Indonesian laws you had to give up your US citizenship thus making Obama ineligible, however the laws at the time of Indonesia disprove this fact as Obama was too old to automatically gain Indonesian citizenship as he resided there less than 6 years, over the age of 5. In addition his natural born citizenship does not recognize the laws of other nations so it was irrelevant. Regarding his attendance in public school his step father obviously lied because the laws did not allow under any circumstance Obama to gain Indonesian citizenship.


Elsewhere you make the point that foreign law doesn't apply to this case, here you make the point that it does. Which is it?



Yet another lawsuit came out arguing his Kenyan/British dual citizenship where the constitution forbids.... however Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship at the age of 21 as he did not give up his natural born American citizenship. The laws of Kenya at the time were also not recognizing by the US in anyway thus the laws there did not affect Obama. The constitution also states dual citizenship at the time of running for the presidency.


Again, does Kenyan law apply, or not? Can't have it both ways. That point would be moot, however, if "natural born" status were determined to be absent. Kinda the point of the lawsuits which have been obfuscated.

Natural-born status required: US Constitution, Article II, Section I, Paragraph 5.



And then there was one lawsuit that argued that his mother was too young to pass her citizenship on to Obama when he was born.... yet Obama was born on US soil in any case so he is by all means natural born, in addition the marriage of his mother and father was not valid as his father was already married in Kenya, so any complications there don’t work out. This notion that somehow Miss Dunham went to Kenya at such a young age, 8-9 months pregnant, had Obama there, then rushed back makes no sense,


Birthplace has not been determined. "Natural born" status has not been determined. His father's marriage in Kenya is moot, by your own reckoning of the inapplicability of Kenyan Law.

As far as miss Dunham's travel "not making sense", neither does it make sense for this issue to be stonewalled as it is, IF it's not a real issue. But it IS being stonewalled, whether it makes sense to or not.



especially considering his announcement in the Hawaiian papers at the time, that required you to have a birth certificate.


My own birth, also in 1961 (somewhat before Obama's) was reported in the newspapers of 3 states, sight unseen, two of which I had never been to at the time, and would not go to for some time to come. I fail to see how a newspaper announcement carries the legal force of an original birth record, on that basis.



The only arguments that are left apart from the debunked ones are speculative at best. His trip to Pakistan to which Pakistan actually did not ban US tourists as many claimed.


I'm WELL aware that US citizens could get into and out of Pakistan at that time. The "ban" was not Pakistani, it was a US State department travel advisory. That's not an issue with me.



His supposed grandmother’s audio tape which actually turned out to be his estranged step-grandmother who said Barrack Obama senior was born in Kenya.


I'm unaware of that controversy or the alleged "debunking" of it, and so can not speak to that. So many controversies surrounding this "presidency", so little time to investigate...



The of course, there is the allegations of his deception, his multiple identities, which really go around the realm of story telling. Obama had another name before, yet him as a child can hardly be blamed for the actions of his folks.


Now, this matter of multiple identities, that's the issue at hand, no? As usual, all of the usual suspects are dismissing it out of hand, without critical thought. Knee-jerk much?



And then of course lastly it’s the "why doesn’t he just show his long birth certificate" which is a moot of course because there will always be something he will need to show to somebody. Also given the fact not every president in the past can be accounted for presenting their long form.


So why not make 'em pull their next trick out of their bag of tricks by laying the issue to rest? Could be because of the fear of the discovery of yet ANOTHER forgery...

Not "every president in the past" was questioned as to his origins. Would you care to tell me how many were, and how the matter was decided?



This lawsuit now, where are now claims suspicions regarding social security numbers, is something the plaintiff should then show us. By all means if somebody wants to prove something they have that right, yet like the lawsuits before, this is another hype attempt, attention grabber and nothing more.


I disagree. Plaintiff should show the COURT, as "we" are not in a position to make a legally binding determination, or finding of fact.

However, for your edification, that's right, just for YOU, I present THIS as the plaintiff's enumeration of suspicions. This discussion specifically relates to "Attachment B", under the letterhead of "Sankey Investigations, Inc.". It's not anonymous, as another poster claimed, it's right there in big, bold letters. Maybe the other poster didn't really go to see for himself.



Counter the above one by one, tell me where constitutionally I was wrong. By all means reference the constitution, reference the law.


Done.



As you're so fond of saying


Im fond of seeing that evidence that makes you think Obama was born off american soil, not what you "suspect" because he didnt show you his kindergarten certificate.

SG


No one asked for his "kindergarten certificate". Yet. Reaching like that, via innuendo and outright minimalization, misdirection, and marginalization doesn't help your case.

[edit on 2009/7/12 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by nenothtu
Now you've been answered.


I have?? All I see are a list of names and addresses that are yet to authenticated, verified.


That would be the whole point of seeing the case through court, wouldn't it?

Or do you require that a case already be determined before it gets to court?



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


Heres one example, Chief justice Roberts acceptd 'eligibility' petition,
Roberts agreed to read Obama docs, consider WND's 330,000 signers, after having a look at the arguments put forth he came to the conclusion that under law nobody but Obama himself can attain his birth certificate, the constitutional evidence as well had been debunked.



chief justice ruled on the subject of obama's eligibility? when was this? did he write an opinion? i know he promised to read the material but i haven't heard outcome. please provide details. last i heard, obama was supposed to provide some documentation to some court on july 15 but was expected to ignore it as he has all other such orders. you keep referring to chief justice roberts ruling and dismissal of evidence so you need to provide more information. link?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by nenothtu
Now you've been answered.


I have?? All I see are a list of names and addresses that are yet to authenticated, verified. If you want I can take afew minutes typing out supposed multiple SS numbers from Ron paul and claim it to be true.

The plaintiff has every right to present what he feels as evidence, but like the past 14 or so lawsuits Im not confident this will be going anywhere either.


Oh I found one...

RAWN PAUL
123 E Baldwin Street
La Habra California CA 91603

DAMN I have a lawsuit SG!!!


You should run with that. We'll wait and see how much mileage you get. Doesn't affect me, or this discussion, in the slightest. I didn't vote for Obama, McCain, OR "Rawn Paul".



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator


DO you think we live in 1857???

There would be ZERO benefit in creating a non existent address...
Without benefit what is the motive?

Mail?

The private industry and government have had tools to substantiate the existence of an actual address for ALL of Obama's adult life, especially the Social Security administration.

Are you kidding?


And by NEXT did you mean your next shot of Kool Adie and jack?


You must be pretty young, because what you say simply isn't so. Paper trail, yes, substantiation, no.

Nice personal attack, by the way. When you can't support your argument, it's always a good tactic to try cutting off the windpipe and silencing the individual.

I could return the favor by asking if you like ice with your kool-aid, but I wouldn't want to send you into apopleptic fits.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by JulieMills

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Shame on all of us for becoming the petty and vendictive, narrow minded fools and simpletons devoid of common sense, empathy and compassion our forefathers fought so hard and died in vain to attempt to perpetuate something far grander and better that most of you now consider simply an inconvenience and an impedement to ego and inflated self worth.

How sad when the guillotine does claim it's bloody prize as it always has and always shall, there will likely hardly be a head left attached in what was once the home and the land of the free and the brave, now to cowardly from the head down to even display a simple document for public inspection.


wow...excellet post my friend....excellent.


Yes I think an Eagle shot right out of my backside with that one...



If this tone is all you've got, you should probably take a nap. You're getting cranky.

When you have an affirmative argument to add to the discussion, please feel free to do so.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Dbriefed
 





Oh good! Cause everyone knows how well a coup d'état would go over.
Are you seriously advocating a coup d'état? Sorry man I would fight with my last breath before letting the military run this country.


Fighting to your last breath is always an option. Welcome to the Revolution. Or should I more properly call it a counter-revolution?


I call it welcome the W creation

GITMO



[edit on 12-7-2009 by mental modulator]


I'm missing your point here (as is becoming usual) - are you saying I should be detained in Gitmo, or are you saying the Bushies CREATED Gitmo?



[edit on 2009/7/13 by nenothtu]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

liar,
Well, gee, you really hurt my feelings there!


I've found that folks resort to name-calling and labels when they haven't got a strong enough position to sustain their argument. That wouldn't be the case here, now would it?

In any event, watch that blood pressure. We'd hate to lose you.




To verify we did indeed have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.
"It's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate," spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008.

www.politifact.com...


I've not been able to find any independent verification of that quote.

The picture of the CoLB posted on that site was a copy of the forged document. There is a "glitch" near the top-center of it that is present in the blank copy from which it was produced.

The official statement I DID find, however, was this:


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
News Release
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR

CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
DIRECTOR
Phone: (808) 586-4410
Fax: (808) 586-4444

For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008 08-93

STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO

"There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai'i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
"No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai'i.”
###
For more information, contact:
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Phone: (808) 586-4442


You'll no doubt note that it says a certificate is on file, and nothing more.

Ms Okubo CANNOT have "verified" the certificate presented on your site, since the tracking number was redacted. All I've been able to find on it independently is that she said the FORM was the same, not that it was valid in any way.



Stop dodging it and tell me where constitutionally president Obama is ineligible.


United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, Paragraph 5 is the authority in question. I've not said he is ineligible, I've said his eligibility is in question. So far, all attempts to verify eligibility under that authority has been stonewalled. All the dodging and stonewalling has served to strengthen those suspicions, rather than assuage them.

That's like the 3rd time I've had to say that. Perhaps it's not I that is dodging...

[edit on 2009/7/13 by nenothtu]



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join