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.

 

Update! Officer challenging Obama's eligibility can't see evidence

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
If the proof is provided, concrete and unequivocal - it would only need be presented once, not every five minutes!


It has been presented, that is how Obama is the legal POTUS

But the birthers still want it presented every 5 minutes...


The law is the law, the POTUS is NOT above it and is subject to it's vagaries just as the rest of us are.


Who is saying the President is above the law?


The primary linchpin of any democratic civilization, HAS to be the rule of law, to which every human being participating within that jurisdiction, is subject.


and just who is the one who has broken the law here? - Hint: it is not Obama...


The 'leader' of that democratic civilization, in fact - ESPECIALLY the leader, ought to go the extra mile to accommodate the law, EVEN dare i say at the expense of a fleeting presidential blush or two.


Which Obama has done - if not which law do you think Obama has broken?


if the law states that as a defendant he has the LEGAL right to call whomever he wishes as a witness, or have produced whatever exhibit he wishes in support of his defense, then the court is legally obligated to oblige.


Except the law states no such thing.... if you claim it does please show us exactly which law states that...

You seem to think if someone goes to court he can call every member of the Senate and Congress, every left handed person and everyone who knows how to tie their own shoelaces.... Of course they cannot, and that is why Larkin cannot call the President or demand his birth certificate, as the POTUS is not the one on trial.


if he is denied the right to make his case for his defense. It also makes a laughing stock of the law, and erodes it's authority significantly.


You seem very confused (like most birthers) - once again Obama is not on trial, he has nothing to prove. The defendant is the one who has to prove Obama is not the proper POTUS - and Obama showing his birth certificate once again will not prove that.


Either follow the rule of law, or dismiss the case.


The law is being followed...


The court cannot claim a legal moral high ground, by running roughshod over those very legalities put in place to protect the innocent from tyranny from the state.


The court is doing no such thing, as I said you seem very confused as to whom exactly is on trial here!


It's akin to any one of us being charged for a crime we did not commit, and taken before a court to be tried for the crime, and not permitted to assemble a case in our own defense!


It is nothing like that at all, as Obama has nothing to do with this court case, he is not the one on trial.




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 


Why because I asked for proof from the Birther movement that Obama was not born in the US or that I smell a touch of racism from some of the birther movement.

If you find "Get over it" offensive then I apologize but really I stand by my words. He's President, until the Birther movement can prove otherwise he will remain in office.

Q: Why would the GOP let this slide?

A: Because he was born in the state of Hawaii as proven by the neccessary Vetting required before even being allowed to run for office.

Damn it, there's that logic again.

Deez



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


He had an ORDER TO APPEAR. The order is null and void because it comes from the top down, meaning from Obama to him. Obama is not an American and this would not be an issue if he was, everyone knows he is a wolf in sheep's clothing and since Congress and the Courts fail to do their job real Americans will do it for them.

If Obama screws us one more time, gunshots are going to be heard all across this country and we will see a massive uprising like the world has never seen.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Sky watcher
 



If Obama screws us one more time, gunshots are going to be heard all across this country and we will see a massive uprising like the world has never seen.


RIIIGHT


Birthers are a complete and total joke. These threads are just giant troll threads filled with these birthers who don't bother to read anything and just spew the same moronic crap over and over again.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Obama is not an American


Do you have any proof of that apart from the ranting claim of a deranged birther?


If Obama screws us one more time, gunshots are going to be heard all across this country and we will see a massive uprising like the world has never seen.


The sound of gunshots will just mean more birthers will have shot themselves in the foot!



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
It's akin to any one of us being charged for a crime we did not commit, and taken before a court to be tried for the crime, and not permitted to assemble a case in our own defense!


He WAS permitted to assemble his case, though. He claimed that Obama is not the president. To make his case, he would require a foreign birth certificate or other official papers stating that Obama was born outside the US. He had every opportunity to bring these forth and make his case.

He was, however, denied access to the personal and private papers of another US citizen. That is protecting the Constitutional rights of said citizen against unreasonable search and seizure. If he had any of the evidence (BC or official papers) that supported his position, the court could have looked at them and then determined a next move. But he didn't have such evidence.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DEEZNUTZ
 


Give the race card a break.......do you really think an 18 year officer is gonna flush his career and his pension because he doesn't like the fact that Obama is half black? When race is your only defense, it means you haave nothing else.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Give the race card a break.......do you really think an 18 year officer is gonna flush his career and his pension because he doesn't like the fact that Obama is half black?


As opposed to him flushing his career and pension because.... he saw a fake kenyan birth certificate!



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Wow, and you have proof he only did this because of the fake bc? Maybe, unlike some on here, he investigated the entire situation and found more pointing to the fact the maan is inelligble. Think for just a second, if Obama truely can't be President.........what then. First, everything he has done is undoen, second we have a race war, thirdly it makes the entire US political system look even worse world wide...and finally, might it not make the wars even more illegal? At least he's standing his ground and questioning this....an 18 year officer, and a doctor to boot, I doubt he went into this lightly.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
It has been presented, that is how Obama is the legal POTUS


You keep repeating this like it's true. I really have no idea why you think that is the case, but you're wrong.

The only thing "presented" was a certificate of live birth, which is only a document stating that there is another document on file.

It doesn't matter what's on file though, because he is not eligible. His father was a British citizen, which means Obama is not a natural born citizen.

Sorry.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


ME ME ME ME I DO!


All it takes is one moron to say something and say he has proof for another moron to believe him.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


ME ME ME ME I DO!


All it takes is one moron to say something and say he has proof for another moron to believe him.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Riposte
 


Do you even know what the constitution says? The nationality of your parents has no effect on your citizen ship if you are born on US Soil.

His mother could have been from Jamaica, and his father from China. They could have been on vacation in American and had him by chance he would still be exactly what he is today. A US Citizen.

You people need to get over it. He's eligible to serve, and he's not leaving based in your mis-informed opinions, faux evidence, and paranoid delusions.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


So what if he presented the long form birth certificate from Kenya? The one that has his foot print on it. Then that voids the short form one right? Before you say it is not legit, let me say the birthers don’t feel the short form is legit. The long form copy at least has a DR. signature, hospital, and foot print. Now does this mean the court has to look into which one is factual? They should, but they won’t, because they “say so” na na.

Well despite what you all think it makes not one difference to me what the out come is as long as the truth is discovered in a fair and honest way! That is why I hate the way the Obama lovers act, because you all don’t care about what is truth full and honest as long as your guy stays out of touch. In my opinion that makes you as bad as it gets and should also suffer the consequence when (and it will) the truth comes out.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Let me address your reply in segments, if i may.



You are the one not following the rule of law.


I do follow the rule of law, please point out to me where I, personally, do not.



At this point you would have to prove that Obama is ineligible for the office. You can't just demand that he prove his innocence.


Frankly, 'I' do not have to prove anything at all, considering it is not me that is making any allegations regarding your sitting presidents' legitimacy or lack thereof. I neither assert, nor demand a thing concerning Barack Obama..although this is what others are demanding i believe.



You have to prove him guilty.


I refer you to my above response. Although i would add, as far as the defendant in this story goes, it's going to be a little tough to prove his case, when everything being requested to assist in his proving it, is being denied to him.

Again, i state the obvious; The POTUS is not above the law, he is not a supreme being, his word is not gospel. He is a man, like any other and as such is subject to the rules and procedures of the laws set down for all to follow and adhere to.

For a judge to deny a defendant facing a possibly detrimental life altering trial, his established and absolute legal right to call witnesses, ANY witnesses (even if those witnesses are represented in court only by proxy) and exhibits and/or materials to aid in his defense and rebuttal of charges levied against him, by reason of "It might cause embarrassment to the president" is wholly unacceptable, morally, legally and intellectually.

It's also actually pathetic and reeks of simpering weak-kneed, crawling butt kissing on the part of the judge, in my opinion.




..he has already shown positive proof that he was born in Hawaii..
And at this point the courts cannot decide this according to the Constitution, the Senate is the only ones that can bring forth a case against the POTUS.


As i understand it, the defendant is not in court to bring a case against Barack Obama, rather he is attempting to exercise his legal right to call witnesses and materials which happen to include among them the documents you cite as positive proof of Barack Obama's place of birth, to aid in his defense.

It is a perfectly reasonable, and perfectly legal request, considering the defendant's circumstances and why he finds himself in those circumstances.

The request for both the witness(es) and materials are Germane to the defendant's ability to mount and support his legal right to provide a defense against the charges he is accused of.

You appear to have missed or disregarded the whole thrust and main point of my post.

I would advise more in depth thought about the post you are replying to, rather than satisfying a compulsion to whack off a hasty reply. Something i too am guilty of myself at times.

Thank you for your reply.








[edit on 3/9/2010 by spikey]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





He was, however, denied access to the personal and private papers of another US citizen. That is protecting the Constitutional rights of said citizen against unreasonable search and seizure.


Sorry, but that is pure nonsense.

The State routinely and flagrantly disregards the 'Constitutional rights' of US citizens, in some cases locking US citizens away without trial, or a shred of evidence against them.

This is also true of the US state performing 'extraordinary renditions', of the US state performing torture, both physical and psychological, on US citizens, including threats to rape and sexually abuse them if they are only SUSPECTED of 'terrorist' actions.

The US state makes a mockery of the Constitutional rights of US citizens, by eavesdropping electronically, and spying visually on those very citizens, as a matter of routine.

The personal and private papers of thousands of US citizens are subject to subpoena, by a court in support of a criminal trial every day of the week.

The US state does not give a flying hoot about the Constitutional rights of the US citizens, unless members of the state hierachy can use it to their own advantage, then they scream and squeal their hypocritical heads off about their rights under the Constitution.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by xyankee
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


So what if he presented the long form birth certificate from Kenya? The one that has his foot print on it. Then that voids the short form one right? Before you say it is not legit, let me say the birthers don’t feel the short form is legit. The long form copy at least has a DR.


The Hawaiian short form birth certificate has been verified by Hawaiian state officials.

Lucas Smiths supposed Kenyan long form birth certificate has not been verified by anybody. In addition to that fact there is a number of inaccuracies on the supposed Kenyan birth certificate he presented including the fact:

1. The birth certificate was signed on the 8th of July 1961


2. Long form birth certificates from Kenya in the early 60's looked nothing like the one Lucas presented.

The date format: month-day-year is completely wrong. The British format is day-month-year.

If that birth certificate is really authentic, it would not be hard to get it verified by a Kenyan official or get another birth certificate from Kenya of another individual that looks the same. But if you prefer to believe this guy:



....a clown that thinks going to some undisclosed place and standing infront of mixed african kids is going to somehow bring more credibility to his claim, thats your deal.


signature, hospital, and foot print.


Anybody can get a signiture, write a hospitals name down and get a footprint of a baby. Not everybody can get a government official to confirm an authenticity of a birth certificate neither can they get away with comparing a fake birth certificate to another authentic one. This is core to what seperates the fakes from the authentics. Lucas Smith's one is no different.


Well despite what you all think it makes not one difference to me what the out come is as long as the truth is discovered in a fair and honest


I don't think you care about fairness or honesty. If you did you would not be sitting here referencing another obvious fake.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by xyankee
So what if he presented the long form birth certificate from Kenya? The one that has his foot print on it. Then that voids the short form one right? Before you say it is not legit, let me say the birthers don’t feel the short form is legit. The long form copy at least has a DR. signature, hospital, and foot print. Now does this mean the court has to look into which one is factual?


If Lakin presented the Kenyan certificate, the court would say that ANY evidence involving the president is irrelevant TO THE CASE OF LAKIN DISOBEYING AN ORDER. Obama's papers wouldn't change the fact that Lakin disobeyed an order and was derelict in his duty. His superior officers gave him and order and he refused. Obama's BC isn't going to change that one way or another. It is irrelevant in this case.

I'm not an Obama lover, I'm a Constitution lover. I'm an Order of the Law lover.



Originally posted by spikey
The personal and private papers of thousands of US citizens are subject to subpoena, by a court in support of a criminal trial every day of the week.


Yes, and they could subpoena him if there was a case brought against him. There isn't. There is no case that involves Barack Obama here. A man disobeyed an order. Barack Obama's BC isn't going to change ANYTHING about that.

If Lakin wants his justice, he should bring sufficient evidence to prove that he has a case against Obama and take THAT to court. This particular case was a case AGAINST Lakin about a very specific thing: Disobeying an order and dereliction of duty. You can't mix and mingle court cases or make a case where there isn't one. Our law works in a very specific way. And you can't go willy-nilly making a military case against Lakin into a criminal case against Obama. You just can't do that under our law.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Is this slur supposed to be on topic?

There are a great many people who harbour dislike or disdain for Barack Obama for a great many reasons, not all of which are connected to the controversy surrounding where he was or wasn't born.

Care to wander on topic a little, and comment on the case the OP highlighted, rather than spewing your own personal prejudice?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





Anybody can get a signiture, write a hospitals name down and get a footprint of a baby. Not everybody can get a government official to confirm an authenticity of a birth certificate neither can they get away with comparing a fake birth certificate to another authentic one.


You said it.

Not everybody can fake an official document good enough to fool a government official..although there are a great many people that can and do, every day of the week, in every country on Earth.

Of course, a simple forgery is a very straightforward exercise for members of any of the ABC agencies to accomplish, and even easier still when bankrolled by very influential, powerful and wealthy individuals with an intent to deceive.

A birth certificate is a simple document to forge, or to create fraudulent register entries in conjunction with a genuine certificate, with fraudulent particulars entered into them.

Are you forgetting who these people are? These are not some hooky, gang of chancer kids, working out of a basement in a rundown district.
These are some of the world most powerful and influential people..are you seriously suggesting it would be a difficult task for them to accomplish?

If members of the power elite, together with all of their considerable resources, both human and material, couldn't fake a single, common document convincingly, i'd be seriously worried.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join