Trump is not letting up! Will Obama respond??

Originally posted by STM777
1. Privacy rights.......don't all presidents necessarily give up much of their privacy when seeking the office. Its a part of the job. We are not asking for STD test results, we are asking for basic information to determine eligibility. For the life of me......I don't understand the stonewalling.

No. presidents don't give up any rights. There's nothing anywhere that says that presidents have to give up any rights.

For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock)[7]:

That's if they were born ABROAD. Obama was born in Honolulu, so that part of the nationality laws do not apply.

en.wikipedia.org...

Look at the heading of the paragraphyou quoted:

Birth abroad to one United States citizen

Originally posted by STM777
1. Unreasonable to ask if your curious? I guess we have someone else who would like to do away with the Freedom of Information Act?

The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to non-governmental business. Why don't you request the Social Security numbers of the members of congress and see where that gets you.

I am not being confrontational, but you seem uneducated about the nuances of the issue and in government in general.

BTW- The document that "millions of Americans" must produce for legal purposes is the same as the doc Pres. Obama produced. I have explained this in posts to you before...did you honestly miss those several explanations or are you in the camp of denial when it comes to simple facts.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by STM777
1. Privacy rights.......don't all presidents necessarily give up much of their privacy when seeking the office. Its a part of the job. We are not asking for STD test results, we are asking for basic information to determine eligibility. For the life of me......I don't understand the stonewalling.

No. presidents don't give up any rights. There's nothing anywhere that says that presidents have to give up any rights.

For persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true (except if born out-of-wedlock)[7]:

That's if they were born ABROAD. Obama was born in Honolulu, so that part of the nationality laws do not apply.

en.wikipedia.org...

Look at the heading of the paragraphyou quoted:

Birth abroad to one United States citizen

1. There seems to be conflation of between privacy and the right to privacy. Of course he still maintains rights granted under the Constitution. What right are you suggesting is being violated by the request?

2. Regarding Born Abroad, the discussion is getting circular here. You make the assumption that he was born at home based on the computer generated COLB. I don't make that assumption. I'm requesting the original document. I am requesting the best evidence.

Originally posted by STM777
Your post takes for granted that the computer COLB accurately reflects the original COLB.

By law the state of Hawaii requires those certificates to contain accurate information. If some error or inaccuracy existed the registrar who signed and validated the certificate would have corrected it before doing so...as well as the director of health and services who also confirmed the accuracy of the document.

Originally posted by STM777
However, wouldn't the best evidence rule in court require the original or certified copy of the same? The only way you could get the computer generated COLB into evidence is for the originals to be lost or destroyed.

Nope...you are reading bunk. There is nothing that warrants one certified copy of a Birth Certificate from another to be "better evidence". that is the precise nature of the certified registrars seal and signature.

Specificallt the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" requires every court in the land to recognize the citizenship afforded and individual by any other state or court.

A registrars seal from a given state serves that purpose and declaring it insufficient would violate the "Full faith and Credit Clause"

See here...
en.wikipedia.org...

Again...I am suspecting that answers or facts are not what you are interested in....but for the sake of courtessy I will pretend otherwise.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by STM777
1. Unreasonable to ask if your curious? I guess we have someone else who would like to do away with the Freedom of Information Act?

The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to non-governmental business. Why don't you request the Social Security numbers of the members of congress and see where that gets you.

I am not being confrontational, but you seem uneducated about the nuances of the issue and in government in general.

BTW- The document that "millions of Americans" must produce for legal purposes is the same as the doc Pres. Obama produced. I have explained this in posts to you before...did you honestly miss those several explanations or are you in the camp of denial when it comes to simple facts.

edit on 30-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

1. Perhaps my reference to the Freedom of Information Act was to nuanced, for that I apologize. I was drawing an analogy between information/documentation that the government wishes to maintain secret and the desire of the governed for transparency. I was NOT suggesting that BHO's BC or COLB would fall under the purview of a FOIA request.

2.I disagree. I had to produce my a certified copy of my BC multiple times.

Originally posted by STM777
You make the assumption that he was born at home based on the computer generated COLB. I don't make that assumption. I'm requesting the original document. I am requesting the best evidence.

It is an assumption in as much as the world is round and not flat.

You are still confused about what constitutes best evidence.

A COLB with a registrars seal and signature, publically validated by the Director of Health and human services is better evidence than 99.9999% of Americans will ever have.

Original BCs can be and often are forged. The value of credibility of the document doesn't rest in the BC, but in the fact that it is contained in a government records vault as opposed to a back pocket. It's status in that records vault is then validated by a registrar and a document was produced, signed, sealed and repeatedly confirmed to be accurate.

That is the best evidence by far anyone can ask for...no as far as what they Demand? There are all types of folks in this world and no one is subject to demands for irrelevant private information from strangers. That is why we have privacy laws.

In short, Pres. Obama has provided everything neccessary and then some to prove his citizenship and when the "obama is a terrorist muslim from kenya" crew demanded more without any logical or legal justification...he ignored them and continues to do so.

Given your habit of not acknowledging the falsehoods you have claimed that have been disproven thus far on this thread...i might soon follow his lead. For a moment I mistakenly thought you were interested in answers, which, I admit was a bit of a hopeful reach on my part...but you are interested in being right, whatever facts you must ignore to do so.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by STM777
Your post takes for granted that the computer COLB accurately reflects the original COLB.

By law the state of Hawaii requires those certificates to contain accurate information. If some error or inaccuracy existed the registrar who signed and validated the certificate would have corrected it before doing so...as well as the director of health and services who also confirmed the accuracy of the document.

Originally posted by STM777
However, wouldn't the best evidence rule in court require the original or certified copy of the same? The only way you could get the computer generated COLB into evidence is for the originals to be lost or destroyed.

Nope...you are reading bunk. There is nothing that warrants one certified copy of a Birth Certificate from another to be "better evidence". that is the precise nature of the certified registrars seal and signature.

Specificallt the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" requires every court in the land to recognize the citizenship afforded and individual by any other state or court.

A registrars seal from a given state serves that purpose and declaring it insufficient would violate the "Full faith and Credit Clause"

See here...
en.wikipedia.org...

Again...I am suspecting that answers or facts are not what you are interested in....but for the sake of courtessy I will pretend otherwise.

1. What's reuquired by law and what actually happens are two different things. You take it on faith that the DHS performed their job accurately, I don't share that faith. I don't care if the document is plastered with Ribbons and Seals from the Governor. We are back to the best evidence rule.

2. I've heard that before.......Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn't always apply, just ask gay people seeking to have their marraige license enforced in a hostile state.

reply to post by STM777


It is the law, not faith and yes each and every court is required to recognize such citizenship as deemed valid by the government of a another state. Full Faith and Credit.

The gay marriage debate is not applicable as the Defense of Marriage Act intentionally short circuited the Full faith and Credit Clause in that circumstance...and it should be noted that particular debate continues to wind itself through the courts and I am fairly certain the Constitution will win out over DOMA.

Originally posted by STM777
You take it on faith that the DHS performed their job accurately, I don't share that faith. I don't care if the document is plastered with Ribbons and Seals from the Governor. We are back to the best evidence rule.

No offense, but who cares what you deem valid? The courts and the constitution disagree with you. Not each and every citizen of the United States is entitled to make up what constitutes "best evidence" in court...Nor is each and every citizen entitled to have thier curiousity sated when it comes to another's personal documents.

Your opinions and wishes are not legal grounds for anything.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by STM777
You make the assumption that he was born at home based on the computer generated COLB. I don't make that assumption. I'm requesting the original document. I am requesting the best evidence.

It is an assumption in as much as the world is round and not flat.

You are still confused about what constitutes best evidence.

A COLB with a registrars seal and signature, publically validated by the Director of Health and human services is better evidence than 99.9999% of Americans will ever have.

Original BCs can be and often are forged. The value of credibility of the document doesn't rest in the BC, but in the fact that it is contained in a government records vault as opposed to a back pocket. It's status in that records vault is then validated by a registrar and a document was produced, signed, sealed and repeatedly confirmed to be accurate.

That is the best evidence by far anyone can ask for...no as far as what they Demand? There are all types of folks in this world and no one is subject to demands for irrelevant private information from strangers. That is why we have privacy laws.

In short, Pres. Obama has provided everything neccessary and then some to prove his citizenship and when the "obama is a terrorist muslim from kenya" crew demanded more without any logical or legal justification...he ignored them and continues to do so.

Given your habit of not acknowledging the falsehoods you have claimed that have been disproven thus far on this thread...i might soon follow his lead. For a moment I mistakenly thought you were interested in answers, which, I admit was a bit of a hopeful reach on my part...but you are interested in being right, whatever facts you must ignore to do so.

Your absolutely wrong. I am asking BHO to simply release his BC. I am not asking for STD tests, not psych records assuming they exist, but his BC. The response is shocking to me. Stonewalling, hiring some of the largest firms in the world to prevent from releasing what millions of Americans had to release to simply live their lives. I'm sorry your not bothered by BHO's heavy handed approach, I am.

Instead you offer me some computer generated print out with a seal on it and essentially tell me to go eat cake. BHO has released NOTHING. When McCain released 1,500 pages of medical records BHO released a couple of pages. Bush and Kerry released their academic records, but BHO, who ran of a platform of transparency has released NOTHING. Not passport information, no information regarding his clients or billing records when he practiced law, even Hillary did that. We will have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux
Your tactics have been obvious from the first birther thread you showed up in. Either call everyone in the thread that doesn't agree with you a racist

Oh no, I don't think every birther is a racist, but I do believe racism fuels the conspiracy for most birthers. As for my post, it is highly relevant. Birthers demand Obama release his long form birth certificate because of his "questionable past", you obviously agree with them, but you claim you don't want him to release his long form birth certificate. I understand, it's hard to get your hypocrisy around your head, take your time.

I'm not buying into anything only providing info

You implied that Obama was not vetted by your statement regarding Palin, made references to Maskell and his document and stated you take his word. I'm just astounded that you are trying so hard to back away from your stance.

I'm not worried about where the man was born.

Let's go back to your comments shall we?

"If Obama thinks he would win any votes after keeping the whole BC topic open instead of solving it"

"And this was Obama's Delivery doctor?"

"And as far as I've been able to find out Hawaii gives the COLB to those not born in the state"

So you're not worried about where this man was born, yet you're participating in a thread exactly about that arguing that he hasn't provided any evidence of his birth on US soil.

I only posted things showing it's possible that he wasn't vetted.

uhuh.

Are you saying a congressional hearing was held to make sure Obama was eligible?

There wasn't a need for congressional hearing on Obama's eligibility because he provided enough informating (as other presidents) regarding his birth on Hawaiian soil. If Obama required a congressional hearing about his eligibility, it would be on the basis of solid evidence questioning his birth right.

The issue regarding McCain was already obvious, whether he was a natural born citizen. The law regarding two parents passing on their citizenship to foreign born children was assumed to be just that, citizenship, not natural born citizenship.

I never said I believed it.

Let's go back to your comments again:

But yes, Palin was fully vetted by the McCain staff of her financial and legal records including a background check before announcing she was his running mate. They talked about it on several media outlets after the announcement.

So in what way were you taken out of context in this comment?

Once again I was only providing information that was new to me

That's rather misleading. You argue on one point, provide information to back up that point, and then you state that you're "just providing the information and nothing more".

YOU assume I believe Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.

Yes I that is true, I assume that:
Obama was born in Hawaii,
Reagan was born in California,
Clinton was born in Arkansas,
Bush was born in Conneticut.

We can only assume as best as possible by the information provided by us, the voter's don't know without a doubt whether every presidential candidate went through the appropriate vetting process and we will never know. In the end the only thing we can look to is the constitution and statements from relevant figures (such as health director Fukino of Hawaii) and we can assume they are telling the truth and the process was carried out correctly.

Now you can assume that Palin was vetted, and you can believe what some attorney from congress said, and you can take his word. In the end we are both assuming, but the evidence that leads us to those assumptions are of relevance.

You talk about government transparency and corruption, well they only reflect people like you.

Originally posted by maybereal11
reply to post by STM777

 

It is the law, not faith and yes each and every court is required to recognize such citizenship as deemed valid by the government of a another state. Full Faith and Credit.

The gay marriage debate is not applicable as the Defense of Marriage Act intentionally short circuited the Full faith and Credit Clause in that circumstance...and it should be noted that particular debate continues to wind itself through the courts and I am fairly certain the Constitution will win out over DOMA.

edit on 30-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

If you tried to introduce that computer print out with the largest seal you could find in my state's trial court, I would would object. The best evidence is not being presented and the exceptions which would allow for admission, haven't been met. I win that argument 9 out of 10 times.

The Full Faith and Credit clause applies mainly to judgments and acts between states, If one state wants to recognize your computer print out, that's their perogative. Some states are now passing legislation which will exercise greater scrutiny and require the original documentation.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by STM777
You take it on faith that the DHS performed their job accurately, I don't share that faith. I don't care if the document is plastered with Ribbons and Seals from the Governor. We are back to the best evidence rule.

No offense, but who cares what you deem valid? The courts and the constitution disagree with you. Not each and every citizen of the United States is entitled to make up what constitutes "best evidence" in court...Nor is each and every citizen entitled to have thier curiousity sated when it comes to another's personal documents.

Your opinions and wishes are not legal grounds for anything.

I didn't deem anything. I simply stated what the best evidence rule is and how it is applied. It's not my standard but the standard of trial courts all over this country and in many parts of the world.

"Best evidence rule: A rule of evidence that demands that the original of any document, photograph or recording be used as evidence at trial, rather than a copy. A copy will be allowed into evidence only if the original is unavailable."
legaldefinition.us...

Originally posted by STM777
I am asking BHO to simply release his BC.

Again...no offense, but so what. You seem to think that you have legal authority to demand that people turn over personal documents to satisfy your curiousity. You do not...I don't care if you don't trust the state of Hawaii...niether do the courts.

Originally posted by STM777

If you tried to introduce that computer print out with the largest seal you could find in my state's trial court, I would would object.

Uhhh.....OK. I am sure the judge would be very interested that the guy yelling in the third row officially objects to the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.

This is why the birther movement is considered fringe....your personal views do not equal law...nor do your opinions equal facts. Most people understand that about themselves.

Originally posted by STM777
I simply stated what the best evidence rule is and how it is applied. It's not my standard but the standard of trial courts all over this country and in many parts of the world.

And, as I said before, Obama is not on trial or in a court of law. So, what does this have to do with this issue?

A copy will be allowed into evidence only if the original is unavailable."

Sounds like your standards are higher than the courtroom's.

Originally posted by STM777

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by STM777
You take it on faith that the DHS performed their job accurately, I don't share that faith. I don't care if the document is plastered with Ribbons and Seals from the Governor. We are back to the best evidence rule.

No offense, but who cares what you deem valid? The courts and the constitution disagree with you. Not each and every citizen of the United States is entitled to make up what constitutes "best evidence" in court...Nor is each and every citizen entitled to have thier curiousity sated when it comes to another's personal documents.

Your opinions and wishes are not legal grounds for anything.

I didn't deem anything. I simply stated what the best evidence rule is and how it is applied. It's not my standard but the standard of trial courts all over this country and in many parts of the world.

"Best evidence rule: A rule of evidence that demands that the original of any document, photograph or recording be used as evidence at trial, rather than a copy. A copy will be allowed into evidence only if the original is unavailable."
legaldefinition.us...

Does not apply to validated COLBs with the registrars seal...I know this bit of smack is making the rounds, WND etc. But it does not hold up. Research...think.

It only applies when the evidence can be deemed unreliable...Pres. Obama's COLB is reliable evidence according to the Hawaii state Gov, it's representitives, The US Constitution in the form of the Full faith and Credit Clause etc. It does not meet the standards upon which the "Best Evidence" rule applies...it is the exact opposite of that rule having been validated and certified by government officials.

United StatesThe best evidence rule has been codified in Rules 1001 to 1008 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.[4] These rules generally require the original or reliable duplicate of any "writing, recording, or photograph" when the content of that evidence is given legal significance by substantive law (such as a contracts or copyright dispute) or by the parties themselves (such as using a video recording of a bank robbery). The rule is only a general preference, as rules 1004 to 1007 permit exceptions when the original is unavailable, only of collateral importance, a public record, burdensome, or admitted by the other party in writing or deposition.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Daedalus24
So i ask, do any one of you have definitive proof that is definitive and can stand the scrutiny of a court of law?! Any of it?

Sure, here it is again, as was posted on page 13 of this message thread.

Wow, this message thread is getting saturated with obama's people; and the question becomes, are they...
-- White House staffers?
-- ACORN employees?
-- Community organizers?

Seems like nothing triggers the obama supporters like the keywords birth certificate, then they saturate a message thread in mass.

FYI, the millions spent to suppress the lack of US birth certificate issue was mostly allocated to defame those who dared to simply ask about the real document.

If anyone wants to scold me for posting this link, be my guest; I'm just one ordinary citizen. Well, I think you should reprimand me; so I can know I was admonished by a high level Democrat.

Have a nice day!


ditto, improved choice of words.

In a more enlightened society Trump uses his talents to help Obama clean up his financial departments.

Originally posted by Adonsa

Originally posted by Daedalus24
So i ask, do any one of you have definitive proof that is definitive and can stand the scrutiny of a court of law?! Any of it?

Sure, here it is again, as was posted on page 13 of this message thread.

Wow, this message thread is getting saturated with obama's people; and the question becomes, are they...
-- White House staffers?
-- ACORN employees?
-- Community organizers?

Seems like nothing triggers the obama supporters like the keywords birth certificate, then they saturate a message thread in mass.

FYI, the millions spent to suppress the lack of US birth certificate issue was mostly allocated to defame those who dared to simply ask about the real document.

If anyone wants to scold me for posting this link, be my guest; I'm just one ordinary citizen. Well, I think you should reprimand me; so I can know I was admonished by a high level Democrat.

Have a nice day!

edit on 30/3/11 by Adonsa because: Edited for choice of words to conform better with ATS guidelines.

ditto, improved choice of words.

edit on 30/3/11 by Adonsa because: (no reason given)

Wow that rocks...your post was like an SNL skit...yes you are on to me...I am a secret Obama/Acorn/Community Organizer/Government plant!..... and the video is like a greatest hits collection of all the mocked up evidence the birther crew has ever tried.

I honestly thought it was a joke at first since the video begins with such a painfully edited video of Pres. Obama saying he was born in Kenya that it sounds like a kung-fu fighter lip synching .....if you think that is real then you need to get your head examined, honestly..

I applaud the humor value, but fear you might be serious.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
In a more enlightened society Trump uses his talents to help Obama clean up his financial departments.

Donald trump had a net worth of NEGATIVE 900 Million in the 1990's ..He declared bankruptcy on his businesses...the people he owed cut him a deal in bankruptcy court to keep him afloat in hopes of one day getting some of thier money back..but of course they didn't. He then took thier money and ran.

I wouldn't let Donald trump balance my checkbook.

Recently he did the whole bankruptcy thing again...and skipped out on loans..I think he wants to be POTUS just so he can steal more money.

My favorite part is where he declared the financial crisis an "Act of God" in his court case when he could repay the 4o million dollar loan.

2008 financial crisis

Trump has been caught in the 2008 financial crisis as sales for his Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago have been lagging and he failed to pay a $40m loan to Deutsche Bank in December. Arguing that the crisis is an Act of God, he evoked a clause in the contract to not pay the loan and initiated a countersuit asserting his image has been damaged.[34] Deutsche Bank has in turn noted in court that 'Trump is no stranger to overdue debt' and that he has twice previously filed for bankruptcy with respect to his casino operations.[34]

On February 17, 2009 Trump Entertainment Resorts filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy; Trump having stated on February 13 that he would resign from the board.[35] Trump Entertainment Resorts has three properties in Atlantic City.

en.wikipedia.org...