Investigators: Obama using Connecticut Soc. Sec. Number!!

reply to post by lpowell0627


I don't know...I'm not a lawyer or judge...I don't know court precedings.

All I know is that it was dismissed but I never saw the reason in the link. Maybe it was because the name was wrong or non-existent. I really don't know.

It still does not prove anything...because if your argument is that he at one time changed his name to Barry Soetoro...and now his legal name is Barack Obama...then you admit his name is no longer Barry Soetoro...so I don't see where this argument hlds any water.

reply to post by lpowell0627


I'm not sure why you addressed your post to me or even what your point is.

Are you upset because someone called you a birther? I did not.
Are you asking me for proof that the 9/11 official story isn't true?

I'm not sure the point of that post at all.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
But where did the "temporary use" of this other name stop? If he went to the doctor and was prescribed medicine, was his name Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro? What about when his mother used some form of government service that required her son's full name.

I don't have the answer to these questions and I don't think they're important.

Also note that if it was the law of Indonesia that his name be the same as his father's, then is it not logical to conclude that his name while living in Indonesia would have been legally recognised as Barry Soetoro?

Not necessarily. I don't know how Indonesian law works.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
Then how come, in this lawsuit that was dismissed, does it never reference the fact that Barry Soetoro doesn't exist.

I have used two names in my life. My maiden name and my married name. If someone serves papers to either one, it's me. I get mail in the other name. It's still ME. It's still MINE, even though that's not my legal name. I didn't cease to exist just because my name on the thing is wrong. I have been operating (unbeknownst to me) under a name that wasn't legally mine for 30 years! BOTH names are me, legal or not. If someone served papers to me under EITHER name, I would accept them, even though one of them isn't my legal name. When people say Barry Soetoro, people KNOW they mean Obama.


[edit on 5/14/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by lpowell0627


And to be more clear, an assumed name is considered a legal name, hence again, why the affidavit he signed is illegal because when it asked if he was known by any other names, he checked no.

If the claim can be substantiated that he ever used another SSN other than the one in topic in this thread, then he also will have lied on the Selective Service application that was posted.

Most state courts have held that a legally assumed name (i.e., for a non-fraudulent purpose) is a legal name and usable as their true name, though assumed names are often not considered the person's technically true name.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

And before I get the OMGZ you actually used Wikipedia for a source?!

Noun 1. assumed name - a name that has been assumed temporarily
alias, false name

www.thefreedictionary.com...

The use of assumed names is very common, and happens a lot in broken families when parents remarry. It happened to me, and I was required to legally answer to it when I became an adult. I never knew my real name until I was 13. When I got married, I had to register on my marriage license with my legal birthname, not the name I went by all my life.

Did I ever legally change my name? No, not until I was married and was allowed to choose a name at that point. To this day, I disclose that assumed name, because legally, I have to.

That did not mean that all my school records were illegal, or that I had broken any laws, it just meant that I have to reveal this name when I sign a legal document asking me if I ever used any other names.

Or risk perjuring myself.

Some people may not fear perjuring themselves, it would appear.

Not trying to insult anyone but I do find it funny how people are happy to "be the judge" or "be the lawyer" or "understand the law" when they repeat the official information they were handed or heard mentioned in the media. When other information comes to light that might cast doubt on the official information suddenly they become unable to fulfil these roles, even when doing so only requires they distance themselves from their own beliefs temporarily.

PS: This tactic is used in many other issues too. We don't mind confirming and validating something as being authentic when we agree with the information, but we are quick to distance ourselves from deeming it authentic if it involves information we do not like. I admit that I have used this same tactic in the past - though not on this issue of Obama's past.

[edit on 14/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

What type of information will you accept as proof? I get what you are saying, but if you are asking for an official court transcript then I admit I cannot provide it. I have read many accounts of Obama being referred to and named as Barry Soetoro. Why don't you type "Barry Soetoro" into the Wikipedia search field and see where it redirects to?

If you do not know what proof is, then how do you know what to believe? You made the claim that HE changed his name. Any thing that PROVES that would be acceptable. I am not really sure how else to say it, sorry.

When I was born my parents argued over my first name. My mom's first choice became my middle name and my father's choice became my first name. Out of spite, my mom wrote my name as she wanted it after the divorce. Is that proof I CHANGED MY NAME?

p.s. I still go by the first name on my birth certificate, just like Obama.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Ok...let's come full circle on this.

Let's say he did in fact use Barry Soetoro as his name when he was like 10 years old or whatever.

What does that prove?

What angle are you guys trying to work here?


No one disputes that he lived in Indonesia and went to school there...if he did go by a different name while he lived there...how does that make him inelgible???

I'm not seeing the connection you guys are trying to make.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
...you are a die hard birther with a hate for a man...logic and reasoning will not work with you.

Provide proof please where I claim to be either:

1. Birther
2. State that Obama is from Kenya

As you have requested, one can not make claims without adequate proof.

I'll make a bet with you though....I bet Obama never gets impeached over the birther issue.

No bet because I agree with you.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Arizona not only accepts the SHORT FORM that is widely available online to view but they insist they would need probable cause in the first place so... ya know.

That isn't what President Obama says that law means. He says that they can arrest you for just taking your family out for ice cream.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
If you do not know what proof is, then how do you know what to believe? You made the claim that HE changed his name. Any thing that PROVES that would be acceptable. I am not really sure how else to say it, sorry.

When I was born my parents argued over my first name. My mom's first choice became my middle name and my father's choice became my first name. Out of spite, my mom wrote my name as she wanted it after the divorce. Is that proof I CHANGED MY NAME?

p.s. I still go by the first name on my birth certificate, just like Obama.

I know what proof is. I also know that it can be very subjective when dealing with sensitive topics. For that reason, what I consider proof might not be the same as what you consider proof. I get the feeling that the only proof you would accept is an official court document stating that his name was changed. If you deem that to be the minimum standard of proof then I admit I cannot prove it in your eyes or others with similar expectations.

And this relates to a point I have made in recent threads: in the hypothetical situation that this conspiracy is true, then wouldn't finding "official" evidence be close to impossible? Think about it. Imagine the effort and resources needed to remove information that casts doubt on the official information. This is a conspiracy site. The bar for proof that suggests a conspiracy might be real is lower than is given to the bar that official explanation might be true.

[edit on 14/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


It wasn't all directed at you, I got lazy and did not separate it out by quotes. My fault and my apology.

My point was simply that what people accept as "proof" on this site varies depending on how popular the conspiracy theory is with ATSers.

9/11 is a popular conspiracy theory, so a wider range of acceptable sources and statements is permitted.

reply to post by lpowell0627

Provide proof please where I claim to be either:

1. Birther
2. State that Obama is from Kenya

As you have requested, one can not make claims without adequate proof.

Well I could probably go through your post history and find some comments to show examples....but I really don't have the time.


So I will say here that I am not making this as a statement of fact....but a statement of my opinion of you. This is my opinion of you based off of reading your posts. Maybe I'm wrong...but that is my opinion.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Perhaps you missed my comment:

I am not presenting this as proof but merely questioning why...

Again, it was a question.

I was sued in court by the wrong name. The first thing my lawyer did was change the court order to reflect my actual name. In fact, serving me the papers was delayed because they were searching for me using the wrong name.

I didn't know then, and I don't know now, whether it is common practice to allow suits to continue in a court proceeding using an illegal / unregistered / incorrect name or whether it is common practice to adjust a suit using the person's current legal name.

If we don't ask questions concerning things we don't know, we never learn anything.

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Arizona not only accepts the SHORT FORM that is widely available online to view but they insist they would need probable cause in the first place so... ya know.

That isn't what President Obama says that law means. He says that they can arrest you for just taking your family out for ice cream.

No, he says they can STOP you just for going to get Ice cream and you can take that to one of the many many many many many threads about it and whine and make up crap there.

After all the crimes, murder, and mayhem the Bush gang waged all over the place, I think this thread is very very tiny in comparison.

Obama won the election because of Bush crimes and Obama's clear patriotism.

This issue is very very minor and not that important.

reply to post by K J Gunderson
You are right, Obama said they can stop you.
What he neglected to say was that they can stop you in any state when you go for ice cream. If you don't stop and show 'your papers' you get a warning, ticket or maybe go to jail.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I know what proof is. I also know that it can be very subjective when dealing with sensitive topics. For that reason, what I consider proof might not be the same as what you consider proof.

I am not so sure that you do. The whole point of proof is to do away with subjectivity. Proof is...well, proof. If it is subjective in any way, then it is not actually proof.

I get the feeling that the only proof you would accept is an official court document stating that his name was changed. If you deem that to be the minimum standard of proof then I admit I cannot prove it in your eyes or others with similar expectations.

Then do you still insist he did in fact change his name even though you lack any actual proof or have you decided the word proof means something else and a simple theory based on some loose "facts" is now sufficient?

Either you have PROOF he changed his name or you do not know it for a fact. It is that simple.

And this relates to a point I have made in recent threads: in the hypothetical situation that this conspiracy is true, then wouldn't finding "official" evidence be close to impossible? Think about it. Imagine the effort and resources needed to remove information that casts doubt on the official information. This is a conspiracy site. The bar for proof that suggests a conspiracy might be real is lower than is given to the bar that official explanation might be true.

I understand and even agree with that. The pitfall there is when people then make declarative statements regarding said conspiracies. You are right, if Obama wants to pull something off I bet he can. If he wants forged documents and a scrubbed past, I think he can pull that off. Therefor proof of these conspiracies would be impossible to find. That would also make it impossible to state any of these things as facts. See the catch there?

So that takes me back to...

Did he actually change his name or do you just kind of feel like he changed his name. If you say he did indeed change his name, we go back to asking for proof. If you claim you cannot find proof, I will again ask how you know then. I just thought I would get the first lap around this circle completely out of the way.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
reply to post by Mak Manto

 

Isn't this theory equally as plausible as anything else:

Coincidentally, shortly after WND reported on the SS# from CT,

9 people were arrested for accessing Obama's student loan records

Doesn't it make sense that 1 or more of these 9 sold the SS# to WND, thinking it has a lower visitor count and questionable credibility to some, and then Obama upon seeing the social published knew it had to come from student loan docs and that's how the 9 were found?

The 1 - 9 that were arrested probably thought the White House would ignore WND and that the story wouldn't get much coverage and they would not get prosecuted?

No, actually, it isn't. There are thousands of these wackos who think Obama was born in Kenya, and they somehow think that if they find his student records, it'll prove that.

I'm glad to say that just because someone is the President, that doesn't mean their constitutional rights are thrown out the window.

These people tried to access his records on a government computer. Just as if it was with anybody else, I would want them prosecuted under the full extent of the law.

Now, I'll say this: drop the birther movement...

To believe that multiple states, government agencies, and the federal government is behind the greatest cover-up that Obama's a Kenya-born man is dumb...

I get you don't like the guy. Come 2012, vote him out then. But knock it off with "Obama's an illegal President!"

He's your President, for better or for worse. Trying to get him out on a lie is stupid. Give it up, it's over with.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

You are right, Obama said they can stop you.
What he neglected to say was that they can stop you in any state when you go for ice cream. If you don't stop and show 'your papers' you get a warning, ticket or maybe go to jail.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm nope. Cannot stop me for going to get ice cream in New York. I need NO PAPERS to go get ice cream in New York. Like I said to the other poster, take it to the appropriate thread.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Why is that people can be hypocritical and that's acceptable? You demand proof, time and time again, and yet when it is asked of you, you state:

I really don't have the time.

Perhaps I should just do the work for you.

I am not a Birther.
I do not believe that Obama was likely born in Kenya.
I do not believe he will ever be impeached for anything relating to eligibility.

The closest I come to believing something, is that he is likely a CIA plant. Or, at best, his family was involved in the CIA and much of his history was wiped out in order to protect this information. Whether I go with witness protection or some more nefarious continuation of the NWO agenda, comes and goes depending on the current "proof" offered up and also the topic. I will not go into why I feel this way in this thread since it is off-topic.

As for my feelings, I don't hate Obama. In fact, I acknowledge his as MY President and wish for him to succeed in bringing this country back to what it can be.

To wish a President to fail is about as anti-American as I think one can get.

However, simply because I wish for a President to be successful, does not mean I have to agree with what they are doing nor does it mean I think it's what's best for the country.

I have defended Obama on a number of issues that I felt he made the right call.

I have also been very vocal when I feel he made the wrong call.

In particular, I am opposed to:

-- healthcare reform
-- increased entitlement programs
-- fast tracking illegal immigrants to citizens
-- questionable history / background of any sitting President or POTUS candidate, as well as Congress, etc.
-- hypocritical policies that run counter to the campaign platform
-- missing / lost / unreported large sums of "defense money"
-- kick-backs and bribery


You can insert ANY politicians name and I will stay true to my core beliefs.

Aha! What a fantastic find this is!

Perhaps the next time Obama ventures into the state of Arizona we can have him arrested and deported for having improper papers. After all, it appears he may not be a legal immigrant!