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.

 

Via WND: - Hawaii detective charges 'birth certificate' a fraud - Claims phonies created by state

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by BlackmarketeerThat stuff about the Puerto Rico is even less relevant.
If a state agency can void birth certificates then a Federal one can also.
Puerto Rico is not a “state agency,” it’s a territory. And an unincorporated territory at that.

While it is ultimately subject to the US, Puerto Rico has its own constitution, government, legislature and courts. It also has a Department of Health that issues birth certificates for births in Puerto Rico.


If this was not so, then the Puerto Rico law would be illegal.
No, because they are legislating their own birth certificates, their own Department of Health issues, so they can do whatever they want with their birth certificates.

In the United States birth certificates are issued by the states. The states regulate their own birth certificates, that’s why they are different from state to state.

You claimed INS, a federal agency, voided birth certificates and voided Barack Obama’s. You have not presented a single piece of supporting evidence for your claim.

And it’s ever more obvious that you are way over your head. Admit your INS conspiracy theory is based on nothing but your imagination and we can call it a day.




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Hi all, being from Britain, I have very little bias or knowledge about Obama, all I do remember is that about the time he took post as President, the fact that he was born in Kenya was well known.

There was,I think, also some mention of his or his parents being maltreated by the British at some time and that this might be a problem for any future Anglo American working together. (This part is a dim and distant memory and may not be totally correct.)

I am not bothered enough to want to go view old newspaper records, I just thought that a non US comment might be of interest.

Have a great day.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


ya very nice work man gonna hit your threads and give ya some flags


I dont think anyone rational still thinks Obama isnt hiding something..

I guess well see how long he lasts after this book makes the rounds



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CitizenNum287119327
Why didn't Trump, with all his millions,
send someone to the Kenya hospitals with some wads of cash???

I'm sure they would find someone who would show them the hospital records.
Hell, they would probably tear the page out the filing cabinet and give it to them.



Because the wanker bankers with all their trillions have bigger wads of cash than Stumpy Trumpy so No sale.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
So the next step is... how do you arrest the President? No seriously, a lot of time and energy has been poured into this thing, but one obvious fact remains. What the hell is anybody going to be able to do about it?

Even if the Administration knew he was an outside agent, the sheer amount of work to undo what he's done is insurmountable - not to mention what this would look like in the history books. It's going to look odd seeing a blank spot for four years of American history.

It seems the easiest solution would be to cover it up regardless how passionately people feel about it. You can prove that 2 trillion dollars was funneled out of the Pentagon on September 10th, 2001. No one touches that with a 10 foot pole. It's hard to rat out someone when everyone is guilty.



edit on 9-5-2011 by CodeRed3D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CodeRed3D
So the next step is... how do you arrest the President? No seriously, a lot of time and energy has been poured into this thing, but one obvious fact remains. What the hell is anybody going to be able to do about it?

Even if the Administration knew he was an outside agent, the sheer amount of work to undo what he's done is insurmountable - not to mention what this would look like in the history books. It's going to look odd seeing a blank spot for four years of American history.

It seems the easiest solution would be to cover it up regardless how passionately people feel about it. You can prove that 2 trillion dollars was funneled out of the Pentagon on September 10th, 2001. No one touches that with a 10 foot pole. It's hard to rat out someone when everyone is guilty.



edit on 9-5-2011 by CodeRed3D because: (no reason given)


It can be done...

Clinton had to face the court, despite the fact that he was then the sitting US head of state. He was the first sitting US President to testify before a grand jury investigating his conduct.
After the questioning at White House had finished, Clinton had the moral courage to go on air and admit that he had an inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky.
Clinton also became the second US President, after Andrew Johnson in 1868, to be impeached. Although he was acquitted by the US Senate, Clinton’s trial had lasted from January 7, 1999 until February 12.
Earlier, President Clinton was involved in another controversy with a woman called Paula Jones and on May 27, 1997, the US court had ruled in favour of Paula Jones by finding that the president did not enjoy immunity from civil lawsuits relating to personal conduct not part of his official duties. The case of another former US President Richard Nixon in Watergate scandal also serves as a candid example in this context.
Nixon has been the only president to resign the office in August 1974 before the House impeachment vote. The impeachment hearings against Nixon were initiated on May 9, 1974. Nixon was pardoned by his successor, President Gerald Ford.
Former US President Theodore Roosevelt had once said: “No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favour.”
What Roosevelt had said, had actually been proved by the actions of his own predecessors, Messrs Franklin Pierce and Ulysses Grant.
A glance through the American History also reveals that the precedents for the authority of the rule of law were set by none other than its presidents.
Former American Presidents Franklin Pierce (1804-69) was once arrested during his days in office for running over an elderly lady with his horse.
The case was dropped for lack of evidence in 1853.
Similarly, President Ulysses Grant (1822-85), was also arrested once for speeding on his horse in the streets of Washington DC. He had to pay a $20.00 fine for the crime.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Opspeculate
 


ya for sure Obama isnt untouchable tho as far as the media goes he's covered in teflon

seriously if Bush had done half of what he had he'd be in court already.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CodeRed3D
So the next step is... how do you arrest the President? No seriously, a lot of time and energy has been poured into this thing, but one obvious fact remains.
The fact that remains is that the birthers haven’t proven a single allegation at the foundation of their absurd conspiracy theories and accusations.


Even if the Administration knew he was an outside agent, the sheer amount of work to undo what he's done is insurmountable - not to mention what this would look like in the history books.
It would be fairly easy and quick. Impeachment, and removal.

But Biden would be President, and the birthers would be right where they started since much of their motivations are partisan.


It seems the easiest solution would be to cover it up regardless how passionately people feel about it.
Really? The easiest solution would be for the entire government to participate in fraud on a massive scale to hide the alleged true identity and birth place of a black man with a foreign name, from the US public, and essence, the world, instead of removing him from office after being proven he was ineligible?

We must have different definitions of ‘easy.’



Originally posted by UcDat
seriously if Bush had done half of what he had he'd be in court already.
What has Obama done, that Bush didn’t, worthy of prosecution?



edit on 9-5-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


I'm not on the side of birthers, but in terms of invalidating the presidency it would be an unprecedented and absolutely immense undertaking. Everything enacted by the president would have to be undone, including laws signed, executive orders, treatises, and persons appointed to many positions (including possibly the Supreme Court.) Everything would be questioned and the threat of serious revolution would also be presented if such a fraud were disclosed. Claiming that it would be easier to simply kick him out of office is pure ignorance. Luckily I don't think that is a real threat. Find a different reason to get rid of him, maybe one with some real evidence.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TonyBravada
I'm not on the side of birthers, but in terms of invalidating the presidency it would be an unprecedented and absolutely immense undertaking. Everything enacted by the president would have to be undone, including laws signed, executive orders, treatises, and persons appointed to many positions (including possibly the Supreme Court.) ... Luckily I don't think that is a real threat.
It’s not a real threat, and I tell you why: because none of things you said would be ‘undone,’ would happen.

If a President is later on found to be ineligible and removed from office, the doctrine of de facto officer would certainly apply, and everything he did would remain valid.

Ryder v. United States, at 180—

The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person's appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S. 425, 440 (1886).

"The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office."

If there’s a situation in which the de facto officer doctrine would surely apply would be this one — someone elected to office by the people, whose election was certified by Congress, and was sworn in as President, would undoubtedly have a presumptive or apparent right to exercise the office.

I am, however, willing to consider your scenario if you’re able to provide any legal basis to support it.



edit on 9-5-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
well things are moving along rather well for the birthers just a few more days until the book drops.


The key question is no longer, "Where's the birth certificate?" The key question today is, "Where's the real birth certificate?" More broadly, how will we even recognize it when we see it? There are probably more alleged "birth certificates" floating around for Barack Obama than for anyone who has ever lived. And the one posted on the White House website, bearing the weight of the office of the presidency, is highly suspect indeed. A thousand and one professional and amateur sleuths and document experts have examined what Obama has released and found it wanting. A private detective who has been investigating Obama's eligibility for years has claimed the White House release is actually one of three fraudulent versions of his birth certificate cooked up within the Hawaii health department. It turns out that questions about Obama's citizenship – not just his "natural born citizen" status, but his basic citizenship – have been investigated by the U.S. government since the time of his birth right up through the 2008 election cycle. In Kenya, the government has launched its own investigations as to the possibility Obama was actually born there – and found documents missing during the time period of his birth. If there is any legitimacy to Obama's story about his nativity in Hawaii, he may have waited too long to persuade a very skeptical American public. And his unwillingness to release school records, college records, university records, travel records, information about his Social Security number and more have convinced at least half the public that he cannot be trusted to disclose information that runs contrary to his official life story.

www.wnd.com...



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by UcDat
 


You know, say obama gets impeached right.. Then joey becomes president, that doesn't look any better than obama to me.... Could maybe even be worse, if that is possible.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Yet another thread? Do y'all ever quit? Give it a rest as y'all sound like a bad record on repeat. C;mon now. GET A LIFE OR A HOBBY!



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Why are you here then? Take your own advice



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Why are you here then? Take your own advice


Disprove and debunk this blatant myth and lie.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 

Well, good luck with that then....




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 

Well, good luck with that then....



I know you are not apart of this radical fringe bent on keeping only a select group in power so my target is not you because as past events indicate that you and I can agree and disagree without clawing at one another however this group gets vicious when we challenge them and are able to hit back with facts and they hit back using insults and character assassinations. You have already proven yourself worthy of said honour. Star for you my friend for being firmly grounded in logic, reality and common sense!
edit on 12-5-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
And treasonous Dr. Fukino and ex-Gov. Linda Lingle still living their lie-Soros$$$$...Until Hawaii wakes up and stops protecting this criminal POUS ...this international boycott will continue (Who wants Japans radiation and Hawaii earthquakes, anyway) and another reason to stay off the 'Left Coast!'

Boycott Hawaii



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by truther357
And treasonous Dr. Fukino and ex-Gov. Linda Lingle still living their lie-Soros$$$$...Until Hawaii wakes up and stops protecting this criminal POUS ...this international boycott will continue (Who wants Japans radiation and Hawaii earthquakes, anyway) and another reason to stay off the 'Left Coast!'

Boycott Hawaii


Using character assassinations right out the gate, how intelligent and wise yet offer no solid proof to back you claim. Go away!

Hook, line, sinker, SUNK!



new topics




 
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join