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

Dereks and the like.

My only question is who is paying you for the nonsense you post.
I cannot believe that any rational person can honestly believe the tosh you write defending the indefensible and distorting and lying to do so.
Of course you could just be irrational and stupid.
Or paid agents. If you are, they are wasting their dosh. Your efforts are in general, pathetic.
We are on the subject of Lakim.
The planet has just witnessed the travesty of the American legal system. The man is denied the right of discovery he is entitled to.
Another symptom of American decay and all it entails.
Now we wait for the audit of Fort Knox. The final nail maybe.

Awesome, another birther thread.

Where was he born this time? Or is it about the constitution? I like the constitution ones best.

Originally posted by Emilymary
and lying to do so.

Except as I have shown you arethe one who is continually lying here.... how about answering the simple questions you were asked?

The man is denied the right of discovery he is entitled to.

and still you continue with the lies! Obama is not the one on trial, he does not have to prove anything.... LAKIN IS THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM, SO HE HAS TO PROVE THAT CLAIM!

Originally posted by Emilymary
My only question is who is paying you for the nonsense you post.

First post I read and I can tell the thread's at stage 4 already. Missed all the fun I guess.

reply to post by dereks


If you believe that the documents verifying Barry Soetoros eligibility to assume the office of President, then you either haven't been paying attention or you are being paid to spout this nonsense.

I defy you to provide ANY proof that there has been any vetting whatsoever of this pretender to the throne of the United States.

Take up the challenge or sit down and shut up!

Originally posted by xyankee
Do you have any Idea how many people have brought up a case, only to be feed the same bull. ... I think that in and of itself says a lot.

Yes. It says that none of those people had any evidence worth pursuing. If you bring a case against someone, you have to have SOME evidence to get any satisfaction from your case. The people who have brought cases against Obama (Donofrio, Taitz, etc) have not had any real evidence. Suspicion, speculation and wild assumptions can not be used as evidence in court. It has to be something real.

Originally posted by Emilymary
Interestingly he took the oath of office in secret

A lie?. You claim.
Come on get real. The world!!! saw this.

How can it be "in secret" if the world!!!! saw it?

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Where was he born this time? Or is it about the constitution?

This one is about a military man (Lakin) who disobeyed his superiors' orders and then demanded to see Obama's Birth Certificate because of it. The judge rightly denied this insane request. Apparently, there are those who think that, during his military trial, he should have had access to the personal papers of the US president... Don't ask me to explain their points further, because I honestly cannot.

The birthers are out in numbers today. It's an interesting psychological study in denial and resistance to the truth. It looks a little like the old hands-over-the-ears, singing "tra la la la la" thing... Very interesting.

Originally posted by Tholidor
I defy you to provide ANY proof that there has been any vetting whatsoever of this pretender to the throne of the United States.

As Obama is currently the legal POTUS, how about you show that there was no vetting of him. You made the claim, so you provide proof.

Or are you are just another birther telling lies.

reply to post by Tholidor

I defy you to provide ANY proof that there has been any vetting whatsoever of this pretender to the throne of the United States.

The DNC actually sent out 2 different forms to the Secretaries of State of each of the 50 States of the United States...



As you can see, the DNC National Chairperson was none other than Nancy Pelosi. She was the one that Vetted Obama and sent out these forms to them.

Now, as I said, there were two forms sent out. The second form isn't exactly like the first form. But it still states that Obama was the DNC Candidate.



Why the reason for two forms? I honestly don't know, maybe the requirements for the states they were submitted in are different. Again, I honestly don't know, the point is, the first form does say that Obama and Biden are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.

So there you go, proof that Obama was indeed vetted.

spikey, I really appreciate your postings in this thread and I wanted to get back to you. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood your point, but I guess I have. I'm going to go over your posts and see if I can see what I'm missing and I'll respond to it here:

Originally posted by spikey
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.

Well, I agree with this aspect of your posts completely. The POTUS is not above the law. What law has Obama broken? And I don't mean an accusation, I mean what evidence do you (or anyone) have that he has broken a law?

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.

He posted his CoLB on the Internet. He DID go the extra mile. It wasn't enough for some. Whether he SHOULD do more to accommodate the fringe is a matter of opinion and totally up to him.

As for the the guy who's going to be hung out to dry by the military kangaroo court, 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.

IF the law states that... Does it? No. It has to be relevant to the case. There has to be a reason RELATED TO THE CASE. Fact is, Lakin is defending himself against charges of disobeying an order. Even if Barack Obama came to court and admitted that he was born in Timbuktu, Lakin STILL disobeyed an order, because as of the time he disobeyed an order, Obama was the lawful president. By our law, Obama has been declared president, and even if he was foreign-born, he is, at this time, our president. In the future, if something is discovered to refute that fact, HE WAS STILL LAWFULLY PRESIDENT at the time that Lakin was ordered.

If he is then denied those basic legal rights when being accused of and prosecuted for an alleged crime, the 'trial' in itself then becomes illegal 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're assuming (incorrectly) that a person being charged with something can bring anyone and anything into court that they wish. If I get accused of speeding, I can't use the fact that my mother stopped nursing me too early as a defense. It's called irrelevance. I would not be allowed to bring that evidence into the trial. Only relevant evidence would be accepted, such as something that proved I wasn't speeding or an alibi that I was elsewhere and not driving at the time of the accusation.

Originally posted by spikey
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.

I think this is the crux of your point and I think you are mistaken. All evidence brought into court must be relevant to the case in question. I've tried to explain that Obama's eligibility has no bearing on the fact that Lakin broke the law, so is not being allowed.

Legal Relevance

Generally in law, evidence that is not probative (doesn't tend to prove the proposition for which it is proffered) is inadmissible and the rules of evidence permit it to be excluded from a proceeding or stricken from the record "if objected to by opposing counsel."[1]
...
Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

Obama's BC would NOT prove anything regarding Lakin disobeying an order.

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 would not aid in his defense, though. He still broke the law. If he had appeared as ordered and then created his own court case, he would have been allowed to BRING evidence, but cannot demand it without a good case full of his own evidence that is contrary to common knowledge. In other words, he'd need some papers that proved Obama was foreign born.

In this country, you can't just take someone to court without any evidence and demand that they prove you wrong. Lakin is making a claim. The burden of proof is on HIM to provide evidence that he's RIGHT.

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

I hope I have now addressed it.

Originally posted by whatukno
Why the reason for two forms? I honestly don't know, maybe the requirements for the states they were submitted in are different.

This is the reason. I was involved in the thread that researched this and Hawaii has extra requirements for this form. The Constitution must be mentioned on the form.

I find it extremely interesting that some people here on ATS advocate soldiers disobeying orders to go to war in the middle east, because they think it may be illegal, yet they jump all over this man for making sure his orders are lawfull........smells like hypocracy at it's finest.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Actually that is where I remember it, however, I couldn't remember which thread you posted it in.

So many birther threads, so many of the exact same questions already answered a million times.

But hopefully I answered the birther's question, about whether or not Obama was actually vetted by anyone. Which is insane because obviously someone did, because not only would McCain have blasted Obama on this if he was ineligible, Clinton would have destroyed Obama if he was ineligible. These people seriously think that megalomaniac cutthroat bitch would have stood by when she could have been POTUS? RIGHT!

[edit on 9/4/2010 by whatukno]

Ahhhhh, birther thread!

Gotta whip it out. I.................can't..................help it!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2be195f6bc9f.jpg[/atsimg]




[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ef16d789915c.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by whatukno
Actually that is where I remember it, however, I couldn't remember which thread you posted it in.

HERE is the post that quotes the Hawaii Revised Statute that dictates what must be on the nomination form for their state.

Kind of off-topic, but I wanted to make a note of it for anyone who's curious.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Birthers in general don't consider themselves 'birthers’.

Well that I know is not true! cause I am a BIRTHER! And proud to say so. Although according to you I am an idiot. It does not bother me because if this is the case, it just tell me I should feel sorry for you.

reply to post by xyankee

Well that I know is not true! cause I am a BIRTHER! And proud to say so. Although according to you I am an idiot.

No, according to ME you are an idiot.

There is a reason for my opinion that I believe you are an idiot. The reason is, unlike you, I actually decided to do some research into the claims made by you and your fellow birthers and found evidence to refute your claims.

I am astounded actually that birthers haven't claimed that Obama was born on another planet. Because there is actually a statement of his that he admits that he was born on another planet and a statement like this is hard to refute.



SEE! He admits it! He was born on Krypton!

But do you see what I did there? I took an assumption and looked for evidence to back up that assumption. Whereas birthers, just make assumptions and fail to back them up with anything.

By the way, did you bother to read my blog post where I completely refute most of the birther arguments with facts and sources instead of just relying on assumptions?

[edit on 9/4/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by dereks


Dereks - If there was documented public proof of Obamas citizenship this thread would not exist. The judge indicated possible 'embarrasment' to the government - so what could that possibly be? Your comments seem to indicate you just have 'faith', as if Obama is your messiah.

Is that why you believe so blindly? Is he your messiah?

Both George Bush's parents and Bill Clinton'sparents are US citizens. Bush's birthplace (Connecticut) is therefore irrelevant, he is a natural born citizen regardless of his birthplace.

The same cannot be said for Obama.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by JohnInFL]

reply to post by JohnInFL


AH the birther standby argument, if first your bull [snip] does not succeed, wait a few posts and post your bull [snip] again!

YAY! And the circle of birther idiocy continues!

reply to post by spinalremain


Honestly, does that 'certificate' look like it was printed 46 years ago or yesterday? Seems very fresh looking to me. I'm just sayin.

Originally posted by JohnInFL
Both George Bush's parents and Bill Clinton's parents are US citizens.

How do you know that? Have you seen their birth certificates? Or are you just taking it on faith? Are they your Messiahs?