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.
Originally posted by Backslider
reply to post by The Old American
And what do you expect will happen if proven 100% correct?
I'm not saying this will be the case, but honestly no one here KNOWS anything. None of us.
I've never taken a position on this but have seen some compelling evidence from the "Birthers." I wouldn't be surprised if they were on to something here, what better way to own a president? I understand privacy, but this is the Leader of the Free World. I hope Orly Taitz gets to see the original birth records, if only to put this issue to rest.
Originally posted by sageofmonticello
Originally posted by spoor
When did obama waive privacy rights?
he didnt, of course just some Obama haters claiming that he did!
I am not an Obama hater but it seems to me, if you hold a press conference with the intention of making your birth certificate public, then you release your birth certificate to the public domain, that you have waived your right to the privacy of that birth certificate.
At the very least, one would not expect the birth certificate to be a private matter after those events. Though strictly in a legal sense, I "feel" that is enough proof that he has waived his rights to privacy in this matter.
It is like the Identity theft guy who smugly put his SS# in his commercials to show how great his product was at stopping identity theft. Does he now have a right to keep his SS# private, even though he has entered it into the public domain by paying money to display it for all the world to see?
Once a person chooses to make an item public, for public consumption, it looses all privacy by definition.
Originally posted by kozmo
Originally posted by spoor
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
that Obama had waived all privacy rights by releasing his long-form birth certificate to the American public at a White House press conference April 27.
When did obama waive privacy rights?
he didnt, of course just some Obama haters claiming that he did!
Here, I'll answer that for you... When he released his "ALLEGED" long-form BC on the internet he gave full implied consent.
Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by spoor
I would say obama lost his right to privacy the day he decided to run for office. Unless you dont mind the most powerful country in the world being led by someone you know close to nothing about.
Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Rofl, Taitz. Why is she bothering to persue this? His term is almost over and he most likely wont get another term.
This is from like 2008 i believe, enjoy the laugh!
Originally posted by jibeho
No one is lying... the subpoena was issued.
Court documents
www.orlytaitzesq.com...
I hate to muddy the waters by referring to the actual law, but Taitz has blown it again. Under FRCP 45, a subpoena for discovery, such as a Production of Documents must be issued from the court where the discovery is to occur. She got a Clerk in DC to give her a subpoena for discovery on Hawaii. Oops.
And Orly signed the subpoena, . Not the official Clerk of Court nor any Judge. An attorney can only issue a subpoena in courts where they are liscensed to practice law. She isn't in either DC or Hawaii.
I see more fines coming Orly's way.
Here is Rule 45: www.law.cornell.edu...
If you read it, you will be better educated than Taitz.
Originally posted by IamJustanAmerican
We will see how this plays out.
If it was a Republican the liberals and their main stream media lackeys would be all over it.
Hawaii has always been barely a state.
It had only been a state for a few years when Obama was born.
All those territories administer their own governments both at the state and federal level.
Guam is just as bad with their policies of following rules.
My wife's visa application was approved to come to the USA on 12/25/85.
Christmas day.
If you think Hawaii and it officials can not be corrupted consider this.
There is historical evidence that Hawaiian birth certificates can be procured by those who were not even born there.
Lets use this man as an example Sun Yat-sen.
During the First Sino-Japanese War, Sun went to the Republic of Hawaii in October 1894 and founded the Revive China Society to unveil the goal of a prospering China and as the platform for future revolutionary activities. Members were drawn mainly from Chinese expatriates and from the lower social classes. In March 1904, Sun Yat-sen obtained a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, issued by the Territory of Hawaii, stating he was born on November 24, 1870 in Kula, Maui. Official files of the United States show that Sun had United States nationality, moved to China with his family at age 4, and returned to Hawaii 10 years later.
So,is Obama's birth certificate legit?
When I was the military years ago I was good friends with a young man named Brad,
At one point in time Brad told me that everybody thought he was 19 when he was actually only 18.
He explained to me his mom was a single mother and she obtained a birth certificate showing he was one year younger so she could receive benefits from the government for him a year longer.
Brad was actually born in California in 1957 but his mom was able to get an official birth certificate with a "bogus" birth date of 1958 because she and Brad had moved to Hawaii when he was young.
Because of the remoteness of the islands many people have birth certificates that are not verified because they were not born in a hospital.
All you have to have is a person stating they were there for the birth to make it legit.
Even the U.S. has that policy.
Another person I know had the same situation because he was born on a reservation.
He had a problem entering the military because the person entering his birth certificate in to the county records, recorded his sex as female instead of male.
He had to "prove" he was a male!
I have in my possession two "official" birth certificates for my wife who was born in the Philippines.
Both show the same page,same line in the same book as where the information was taken from.
One shows her birthdate as 25 June 1960.
The other shows 25 July 1959!
This person who is in the White House has many things to hide.
A birth certificate he does not want anyone to see.A SS# that is proven to be from a state he never lived in.
Sealed college records.Visits to countries that at the time he visited were not approve for travel by the State Department.
Lets find the truth not a fabricated truth but the truth.
Originally posted by Honor93
It has been made repeatedly clear that multiple birth notices provided to date are horribly inadequate for proving anything ... he tried.
Originally posted by Undertough
Originally posted by Honor93
It has been made repeatedly clear that multiple birth notices provided to date are horribly inadequate for proving anything ... he tried.
I am curious about this one specifically. How did they prove to be inadequate for proving anything?
If I may ask.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by 4nsicphd
nice attempt to obfuscate the obvious.
this subpoena is for an appearance ... and reason to show cause of non-compliance.
when the next step is taken, then you can 'assume' such things but since this isn't that far, why bother?
Originally posted by The Old American
Big sigh.
Birthers. I'll have to give it to 'em, they won't give up. The sad thing is, even if proven 100% wrong, they probably still won't give up.
/TOA
Originally posted by Undertough
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by 4nsicphd
nice attempt to obfuscate the obvious.
this subpoena is for an appearance ... and reason to show cause of non-compliance.
when the next step is taken, then you can 'assume' such things but since this isn't that far, why bother?
She is still the one that signed it though, right?
Simple yes or no.
Originally posted by Honor93
well, the one i'm looking at isn't exactly what i'd call legible so how can you claim it's hers?
from what i can see, the Deputy Clerk signed it and underlined who the signature party was.
the appearance to show cause for non-compliance is docketed, so that should pretty much preclude a procedural problem as you claim.