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.

 

Magistrate Judge Orders Hawaii Health Officials to Appear in Court to Explain Obama's Birth Records

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Obama can poke a stick at North Korea and get them to launch a missile at Hawaii and this is all over.


Records can't be produced if he gets North Korea to nuke hawaii.




posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

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.


If it is proven correct? It will be a quiet day from the liberals on this site. And it will be a great day in America, because any and all policies put into place by Obama's signature will be null and void. This might be the best chance America has at surviving.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

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.


Why would it seem that way to you?


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.


In a "legal sense" no such rights are ever waived in such a manner so why would you think that to be that case?


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?


Legally? Yes.



Once a person chooses to make an item public, for public consumption, it looses all privacy by definition.


Not in any real or legal sense. It might be nice to just make things up in order to justify the things you think but the reason birthers are still scratching at the door to get in and Obama is still in office is because mainly all they have is this kind of "I would think" stuff that fails the reality test.

But hey, if you can prove any of what you said has any real legal basis I would be all turned around on this.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

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.


I need to see your legal dictionary. Specifically the section on "Implied consent" and how it can be full or less than full.


Why are you guys saying this when it is simply not true?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

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.


Every president before him retained their right to privacy. I am still waiting to find out where Bush was when he was AWOL instead of reporting for his mandated drug test but alas, it is not my right to know. Perhaps you can show me where this changed?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

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!



How much do you wanna bet that he will get another term and probably for the rest of the history of America? Kids, its over. NWO is now.

Typical American response: What are you talking about? The president is elected! We the people elect the president!

Yeah electronically with those voting machines PROVEN to be rigged.

edit on 9-8-2011 by balon0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Well, I think it's safe to assume Judge Richard L. Puglisi won't be seeing higher office or bench assignments in his career. I have no doubt there is incredible pressure in the Judiciary to just leave this alone or kill it, wherever it may pop up in the court system.

Obama has spent millions upon millions when simply laying a piece of paper on a table would have ended it all, on the spot, over 2 years ago. This was first raised as a rather naive (at the time) question of protocol and it could have ended without any fuss at all.

McCain was challenged on HIS legitimacy to run for President as well due to his birth in the U.S. Panamanian Canal Zone as opposed to traditional American soil. I may not like McCain but I love how he handled that issue. He all but buried people in as much documentation he could muster and not only cause a few people to go blind reading paper but ended the whole issue forever.

I don't know or even care so much about Obama's true legal status any more. This has gone far beyond the man or this issue. It's a pure point of Constitutional procedure that needs settled and a procedure to automatically address this with EVERY candidate in the future.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

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.

How do you compare Hawaii to Guam? How is it barely a state? How are states more or less of a state than other states?


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.


Where is this historical evidence?
What you just presented is A story about someone who got a Hawaiian birth certificate before Hawaii was a state. How about after? Did he get a US birth certificate or a territorial one? It certainly does not show that anyone could get a BC from the STATE of Hawaii without being born in Hawaii so I would like to see that very much.



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.


Riiiiiight.

When I was 19, this other 19 year old told me some stuff that was hard to believe. It is totally true though because I checked out NOTHING about it. Wanna hear it, here it goes.

Cool stories.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
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?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Thank you for answering who exactly signed it. I had a feeling no birther was going to be able to read that scratch for me.
Didn't she already try to issue a faulty subpena once before that was ignored because the issuing clerk was her? I swear we tried this one before.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

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.

suppose you'd have to pick one for me to answer that properly.
just a stab in the dark here ... ex: newspaper announcements -- proved nothing
ex: statement written to Hawaiian hospital by POTUS only to be retracted and denied it ever occurred -- proves nothing except he's a deceiver through and through.
ex: his COLB - aside from potential fabrication, it is unacceptable in any capacity as proof of anything
need more?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

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


9/11 Truthers are the same way. It is the nature of a conspiracy to defy all logic.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

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.

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.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 
where in h#!! did you find that video??
God who is she?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I really don't think that anything will come of all of this....there are people in (very high places)......that have the President covered.....and if there are any discrepancies in his birth certificate...by the time... the September court date arrives....(all the birth certificate ducks will be in a row) so to speak. They will find ...nothing.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

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?

It was not my claim but when you rebutted someone else making that claim, you did not rebut that claim.
I asked who did sign it because I could not make it out. I find it hard to believe I am being asked to put any credibility behind this if the people pushing it cannot tell me who signed it.


from what i can see, the Deputy Clerk signed it and underlined who the signature party was.


Where do you see the signature of a deputy clerk and can you name them?


the appearance to show cause for non-compliance is docketed, so that should pretty much preclude a procedural problem as you claim.


As I claim? I do not recall making any such claim. I am really supposed to believe you as a researcher at this point?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by yoesse
 


You are exactly right....The place where the real BC is stored is due for a fire one night, real, real soon......Sorry that it got to happen, but it does......The nation is not ready for the truth that is on his BC at this time....



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join