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.

 

Taitz Thrown Off MSNBC For Bringing Up Obama's Social Security Number

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 

reply to post by filosophia
 


Honestly, just tell me. Neither of you knows what she "proves" in those videos, do you? Neither of you can put it in your own words. She is a lawyer. If she has "proven" anything, then I am sure that will be handled. In the meantime, I would just really like you all to stop pretending you understand and fess up. What law did she "prove" Obama broke? What "proof" does she have? Can either of you put it in your own words or just spend two more pages reposting the videos?




posted on May, 2 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


We've answered those questions multiple times.

You are purposefully ignoring them.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


We've answered those questions multiple times.

You are purposefully ignoring them.


Actually neither of you has even once. You just keep telling me to watch the videos, it is in the video, I did not watch the video, blah blah blah.

I have honestly tried to just hear you guys out, listen to your case. This is why Orly gets thrown out of court. If you cannot answer simple questions, then your argument falls on deaf ears. This is also why Obama is no closer to being impeached over this than he ever was.

Fine. Sit there and pout instead. I am sorry you have no clue what Orly is telling you in those videos but it is cute that you keep saying she said something. Just wish I knew what it was you see in those videos that I cannot see. I am not sure why you refuse to tell me but I am just curious. It really does not matter if you want to keep it to yourself. I am sure president Obama does not really care if you would rather pout than make your case as well.

Orly PROVED she knows what Obama's SSN was. That is all she PROVED. I cannot ask the same question any more times.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


No, just no.
You are moving the goal posts.


I am asking for the exact same thing now that I always was. I feel like you just give standard responses without reading anything. I have only asked for what she proves in the video. Where is her proof? What did she prove? How have I moved anything?


You got shown proof that Obama was never issued that Soc#, and proof he used that Soc#.

No, I was shown Orly making a claim. You have no clue what proof is.

Now you are trying to invent a standard of proof that you can claim "birthers" haven't achieved, due to the fact that you cannot refute what you saw in those videos any other way.

No, I am still just asking for ANY PROOF. Proof is already a standard.


You are so interested in proof?
Okay, prove those documents she presented are fake.





Uhh. no. What do I lose?



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Anyone that can actually show me Orly's PROOF and explain in their own words what it is she PROVED with that PROOF instead of just tossing claims around would probably shut me right up. Instead you just repeat nonsense. Almost seems on purpose.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
She showed his application where he used the number, and the verification that it was never assigned to him.

Anyways, you claim her proof is not good enough and does not qualify as proof. Well, you made the claim now you gotta prove her proof isn't proof enough.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


hey since you didnt get back to me I just assumed you'd rather another source. Here's the break down of her case


Uncharted legal waters. That's how Ramona attorney Gary Kreep summed up the judicial dilemma surrounding the question of whether President Barack Obama is eligible for his office and how Americans should generally deal with an eligibility issue once a president takes office. On Monday, Kreep and lawyer Orly Taitz of Rancho Santa Margarita once again asked the courts to allow them to present their cases and bring evidence in their fight to show that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen. It's not a simple request. At this stage, the court isn't hearing details about what Kreep and Taitz may have found as evidence. This phase involves convincing the courts that the judges have the right to rule on eligibility matters. Taitz and Kreep's cases were dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Santa Ana because the judge didn't believe the court had the jurisdiction to decide the eligibility of the president. But if the courts don't, who does? The answer, according to Deputy U.S. Attorney David Dejute, is Congress. Dejute represented Obama in Monday's oral arguments at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena. But that wasn't the final answer either. Judge Berzon raised the 20th Amendment. “If there's a difficulty regarding eligibility, Congress shall decide by law,” she said. “By law,” she repeated, which would seem to imply that the courts have to get involved. Or not. “The courts need to be involved to enforce the constitution,” Kreep argued. “That's not the issue,” Dejute told Berzon. “The candidates don't have standing.” Standing means eligibility to bring a case before the courts. Dejute and at least one judge questioned whether the general public can come into court and complain about another candidate's eligibility after that person has been sworn into office, just because they didn't get elected. Kreep stood his ground. “This is about the Constitution,” he argued. “The public has a right to enforce the Constitution.” Kreep represents two members of a small, conservative Christian political party called the American Independent Party. His plaintiffs, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, feel that the playing field in the 2008 presidential election wasn't fair because Obama, they believe, won the race without having the requirements to hold the job. His candidacy eclipsed their effort because of the size of their party, but the election wasn't fair if he wasn't eligible, they claim. Even if the public can go into court to argue these types of matters, sometimes that right may have limitations, such as timing, according to Berzon. “You did not file a claim at the time when relief might have been plausible,” she told Kreep. Taitz filed the original case, which was split when two plaintiffs were removed and began working with Kreep instead. She filed the case on Inauguration Day “before Obama did anything as president,” she said. But the judges questioned whether that was too late. “There's no point arguing eligibility when someone hasn't been elected and if we wait until after the election, we're too late,” Kreep contended. “We don't know who's going to be elected.” The judges asked Kreep what he would want as the ultimate relief. “Our expectation is that Obama would vacate the office and Vice President [Joe] Biden would become president,” he replied. Relief means the actions or awards that could be possible to remedy an “injury.” That's another issue. “What's your injury?” Berzon asked Kreep. The judges also questioned the "political question" involved in the cases. “It's a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question,” Kreep stated. “Is the person eligible or not, based on evidence? We disagree with Judge Carter [of the federal court] that it's a political question.” All-in-all, the public got a lesson in U.S. Constitution 101 on Monday, but no one knows where the discussion will lead because this hasn't come up before. There's a way to remove a president from office. Impeachment. However, Kreep argued, if the president was never eligible in the first place, then he isn't really president, so impeachment wouldn't apply. “Nobody is willing to take on this issue,” Kreep told the three judges. “John McCain was the subject of Congressional hearings on whether he was eligible and a ruling was issued. Why McCain and not Obama?” he asked. Three attorneys flew in to help Kreep prepare for oral arguments. Phil Berg came from Philadelphia and Tom Smith flew in from Tennessee. Both attorneys have worked on similar cases. The third lawyer asked to remain anonymous. Berg said it's always hard to know how judges will decide but he, like Kreep, hopes the appellate judges will remand the case back to the federal court for a judge to decide. He said the attorneys need a chance to do discovery and bring evidence. Taitz represents 30 clients, some of whom are in the military and one is an ambassador. She said her case needs to be overturned due to errors made by the U.S. District Court judge. She also said that there has been undue influence from the U.S. Attorney's Office and the White House in the judicial proceedings so far, referencing a friend of the White House who she says was “placed as a clerk” for the federal court judge. “I'm from the Soviet Union,” she said. “I would expect that there but not in the United States.” As she wrapped up, Taitz said, “We went to Congress and the Joint Chiefs of the military. We exhausted all our avenues. Mr. Kreep is right. The courts need to decide.”


ramona.patch.com...

Now the documents she was showing relating to Obama's SIN were official as you know. Also the fact its not his SIN and was that of a now deceased person.

As for the BC again I would challenge you to dispute any part of the first video I posted with that '15' year old... Not who posted the video just the contents therein... Tell us why it had all those layers and all the obvious modifications if it is not a fraud.

Edit again the SIN is an official document as is its records so disputing them is not really an option



edit on 2-5-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


OK, how about this in response to that 15 year old from "a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator".



The doubters have latched onto the idea that Adobe Illustrator — the premier program for computer graphic artists — “reveals” evidence of document manipulation in the Obama birth certificate. They note Illustrator reveals nine separate layers of the document, and claim it’s “proof” the file has been altered.

But that’s not so, says Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator.

“You should not be so suspicious about this,” Tremblay told FoxNews.com, dismissing the allegations.

He said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery. “I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

Tremblay explained that the scanner optical character recognition (OCR) software attempts to translate characters or words in a photograph into text. He said the layers cited by the doubters shows that software at work – and nothing more.

“When you open it in Illustrator it looks like layers, but it doesn’t look like someone built it from scratch. If someone made a fake it wouldn’t look like this,” he said.“Some scanning software is trying to separate the background and the text and splitting element into layers and parts of layers.”

Tremblay also said that during the scanning process, instances where the software was unable to separate text fully from background led to the creation of a separate layer within the document. This could be places where a signature runs over the line of background, or typed characters touch the internal border of the document.

“I know that you can scan a document from a scanner most of the time it will appear as one piece, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no software that’s doing this kind of stuff,” he said, adding that it’s really quite common.

“I’d be more afraid it’d be fake if it was one in piece. It would be harder to check if it’s a good one if it’s a fake,” Tremblay said.


FOX News

edit on 2-5-2011 by xEphon because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon
reply to post by UcDat
 


OK, how about this in response to that 15 year old from "a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator".



Tremblay is straight up lying imo and some very smart folks agree




posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
edit double post

I saw another one where the guy loaded up a scan with OCR to show no way does it acount for any of this if the first vid aint enough for ya ill try and find it

thx for the reply

edit on 2-5-2011 by UcDat because: edit



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 



She showed his application where he used the number....


Well.....there is an ATS thread where member boondock-saint claims that he "x-rayed" the newly issued Obama Birth Certificate, in order to "prove" it was "fake"....( LOL!!! ).

So....guess, unless you can prove this so-called "application" is real, by x-raying it....we will presume it's a fake.

See?

Easy-peasy, this game of calling everything "fake", with no proof.......


Of course....for the ACTUAL birth certificate, that "CTs" are calling "fake"....to actually BE "fake"....well, one would have to dispel all logic, dispense rational thought and knowledge of the very, very, very expert abilities of the many agencies, of many governments, to "falsify" documents.

I mean....just think of, in the US, the "Witness Protection Program", and the new identities they can create....or, espionage, and deep mole spies, and THEIR paperwork....that passes the scrutiny of experts....

So.....some armchair Internet basement-dwelling (stereotype) AMATEURS think that a huge government can be "found out", by them?? LOL!

Ridiculous.

Just logic this out.....



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Byteman
 



She showed his application where he used the number....


Well.....there is an ATS thread where member boondock-saint claims that he "x-rayed" the newly issued Obama Birth Certificate, in order to "prove" it was "fake"....( LOL!!! ).

So....guess, unless you can prove this so-called "application" is real, by x-raying it....we will presume it's a fake.

See?

Easy-peasy, this game of calling everything "fake", with no proof.......


Of course....for the ACTUAL birth certificate, that "CTs" are calling "fake"....to actually BE "fake"....well, one would have to dispel all logic, dispense rational thought and knowledge of the very, very, very expert abilities of the many agencies, of many governments, to "falsify" documents.

I mean....just think of, in the US, the "Witness Protection Program", and the new identities they can create....or, espionage, and deep mole spies, and THEIR paperwork....that passes the scrutiny of experts....

So.....some armchair Internet basement-dwelling (stereotype) AMATEURS think that a huge government can be "found out", by them?? LOL!

Ridiculous.

Just logic this out.....


You went from the reptile argument to this...
funny I thought the first was the stupidest reply id ever read till now


desperation pure and simple this kind of rhetorics I have no respect for it.
edit on 2-5-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-5-2011 by UcDat because: typo



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




Just logic this out.....


Sure, but I don't think you'll like it.



Well.....there is an ATS thread where member boondock-saint claims that he "x-rayed" the newly issued Obama Birth Certificate, in order to "prove" it was "fake"....( LOL!!! ). So....guess, unless you can prove this so-called "application" is real, by x-raying it....we will presume it's a fake. See? Easy-peasy, this game of calling everything "fake", with no proof.......


What some member claimed to do with a document, has nothing to do with the documents Taitz is handing around. Sure it's easy to call stuff fake with no proof, but "birthers" are providing overwhelming proof.

You only chose to focus on one single speculative investigation method, and it's not even a critique of proof itself, only the investigation of proof.



Of course....for the ACTUAL birth certificate, that "CTs" are calling "fake"....to actually BE "fake"....well, one would have to dispel all logic, dispense rational thought and knowledge of the very, very, very expert abilities of the many agencies, of many governments, to "falsify" documents.


Okay, this appears to be you yourself making claims against birthers with no proof.

Something you just criticized. So, thank you for proving you are operating in a double standard, where you can make accusation without proof, but others cannot.



I mean....just think of, in the US, the "Witness Protection Program", and the new identities they can create....or, espionage, and deep mole spies, and THEIR paperwork....that passes the scrutiny of experts....


Creating brand new identities with modern documentation isn't the same as trying to create an old document. The modern documents don't need to be messed with at all, they can just be printed out as modern documents. The BC had to match past documents from typewriters that haven't been made in decades, a much trickier proposition.

Okay, what experts have examined spy documents and found them acceptable?

Is this you using your double-standard again where you can make claims without proof, but others cannot?



So.....some armchair Internet basement-dwelling (stereotype) AMATEURS think that a huge government can be "found out", by them?? LOL!


Someone doesn't remember that Nixon was ultimately forced to resign by a security guard.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
She showed his application where he used the number, and the verification that it was never assigned to him.


Oh god, I cannot laugh this much all in one night. She shows his SSN, right? Any proof that is his SSN? No. I will just accept that it is though. She then shows us what? What is that form she shows as "proof?" Can you tell me what it is, exactly? Can you tell me how I now it is real?

Please tell me why a woman who has had her hat handed to her in court for filing fraudulent documents is suddenly to be taken at her word? You just believe anything some Russian dentist tells you on TV? I am not so gullible. Perhaps you can show me that document she has that is supposed "proof" and you can explain the veracity of it to me?


Anyways, you claim her proof is not good enough and does not qualify as proof. Well, you made the claim now you gotta prove her proof isn't proof enough.




Right after you prove she proved anything. I think it is really cute that you think I need to ever do anything. I am not the one trying to unseat the president. I can do nothing. I can debunk you. I can lie. I can die in an accident tomorrow. None of that will unseat Obama and I could care less. I am not looking to remove any elected president no matter how I feel about them. That is not the country I want to live in. You want him gone, you do something about it.

I find it really sad that a group of people that pride themselves on their skepticism will so easily just take the word of a proven fraud because she showed some paper on tv for a second and you could almost make some of it out.
Wow your standards sure are low when the argument is anti-Obama.

The state of Hawaii presents a birth certificate in 2008 and you all say it is fake and they are lying for two years. Orly lies and gets fined and tossed out of court for 2 years, then she flashes something on TV and you just eat that right up. Seriously?
edit on 5/2/11 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



I really also hope you appreciate the president of SS fraud while holding a document she got her hands on through admitted SS fraud.
Silly birthers.
edit on 5/2/11 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


I proved my claim, that Taitz has proof that Obama is using a soc illegally.

You claimed that the proof is lacking, so prove it.

This is the pro-obama double-standard. We gotta show proof for everything, but you only need to make accusations. Well, I won't play your double-standard game anymore.

If you are unwilling to prove your claim that this evidence is fake, then you agree by silence that it is real.

666th post...lol.
edit on 2-5-2011 by Byteman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by UcDat

Originally posted by Michelle129th
Why couldn't she just answer his question? This is complete nonsense on both their parts. Answer his question and then move on to the next subject (SS number). He obviously didn't want her to run the interview how she wanted and she was uninterested in answering his question as to whether or not she believed the birth certificate..what a waste of air time.

Michelle


Ill keep posting this vid anytime someone tries to defend that fake BC

as for her answering him bs he was yelling at her like a pig cause he didnt want you to hear the facts Obama is a big fat fake so is your government and your news.

edit btw mine too if that makes it any better sigh



edit on 2-5-2011 by UcDat because: edit


Do you think the reason he treated her that way might be because she has a history of avoiding direct questions, and trying to take over the interview in order to present HER agenda?
www.youtube.com...
Notice she also lashes out at CNN?

Be honest with yourself - she was asked a direct question and she ducked it EVERY time, wouldn't that upset you if you were trying to get an answer out of her - especially since it was intimated that she was informed of the specific reason why she was invited to appear in the first place - then she just tries to hijack the whole interview?
Whose show is it after all? Whose responsibility is it to keep the interview from becoming an off-topic rant?

Frankly, I don't blame him at all for treating her like that based on her past behavior.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I wonder which Barack Hussein Obama this is supposed to be?
Anyone care to wager a guess?

Selective Service Application:


Social security verification failure on same name and Soc in above document:

edit on 2-5-2011 by Byteman because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-5-2011 by Byteman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-5-2011 by Byteman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


never seen this one got ta agree she is pretty emotional but like she said she had several bad experiences.

but imo the newscasters did fine on this one and one emotional interview doesnt justify the behaviour of the guy in the OP vid...

Still I can see your point about her being pushy but I'd call it more defensive than offensive.



edit on 2-5-2011 by UcDat because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Well except for maybe the "Brown Shirt" thing?



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


I proved my claim, that Taitz has proof that Obama is using a soc illegally.

You claimed that the proof is lacking, so prove it.

This is the pro-obama double-standard. We gotta show proof for everything, but you only need to make accusations. Well, I won't play your double-standard game anymore.

If you are unwilling to prove your claim that this evidence is fake, then you agree by silence that it is real.

666th post...lol.
edit on 2-5-2011 by Byteman because: (no reason given)


Gotta disagree. Until the SS admin steps in and officially comments, all YOU have is an accusation. You've presented some documentation (from others and obtained questionably) to support your claim/accusation - but not "proof"

"Proof" can only come from one source - a statement from the SS admin on this specific question - agree?




top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join