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 caladonea
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.
Originally posted by Caji316
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....
Originally posted by caladonea
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.
Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Undertough
Just sounds like your opinion vs my opinion.
Unless you want to find some source that says you are right and I am wrong, you have proven nothing except that you dis-agree with me. lol... I already knew that... didn't require a response from you.
I was just giving you my opinion. Say it with me "O---PIN---ION"
So do you have any sources for your supposed expert legal knowledge or are you going to just keep spouting baseless opinion as fact?
Seeing how you are asserting that your opinion is based on legal facts?
I never asserted as much, I even went so far as to outright say "I feel" not "I know for a fact". Though common sense and logic tell me I am right.
ETA: this is what I was saying to you... suppose somebody decides to put a copy of Obamas birth certificate on their website, then out of the blue, Obama says "Hey, I don't want it there". If he tried to sue the person to take it off, in my OPINION he would not win because he has entered his BC into the public domain.
How can a document that has been made public by the owner be protected by privacy laws? Once the document has been made public, by the owner, it is no longer private BY DEFINITION. Privacy laws no longer apply to a public document.
I am not sure there is much point in talking with you as you seem more concerned with supporting your position than having a rational, objective thought.edit on 9-8-2011 by sageofmonticello because: ETA
Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Undertough
I don't care enough about you to do your research for you.
Let alone read your entire response. What you type just doesn't mean enough to me.
Winning an "internet argument" for fictional "rep" doesn't really interest me.
Having a rational discussion with objective intelligent people does though.
From my very first post I made it clear that I was giving you my opinion.
You can keep trying to argue in circles. I will keep viewing you as irrational and subjective.
To put it more simply...
I don't care.
I have made my point and you simply act more irrational and subjective. I don't need to say anything else to you as you don't seem to understand any of it. Maybe your thoughts are being clouded by emotions? Just guessing cause I assume in "real life" you act with a little more thought? Maybe not, who knows? You have proven yourself quite crazy in my OPINION and that does not lead to a productive conversation in my experience.
I really have nothing else to say about anything you wrote.edit on 9-8-2011 by sageofmonticello because: ETA
Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Undertough
I truly have no idea what you are talking about. This is seriously getting old and you are just acting more and more childish. I am done, nothing else to say to you, if you have any more questions refer to my previous post.
edit on 9-8-2011 by sageofmonticello because: grammar is important
and, you don't even identify to which document you refer.
Could you kindly name the clerk of the court that signed that? That seems to be the only thing I am having trouble with.
just cause you "swear it" doesn't mean it's true.
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.
me thinks you are addressing the wrong person unless you care to specify which document and then maybe we can arrive at an answer.
She is still the one that signed it though, right?
Simple yes or no.
in and of itself, this statement is correct, however, if you post that document for PUBLIC viewing (as Obama did), you have waived your privacy, period.
I do not waive my rights by showing private documents on my own terms.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Undertough
in and of itself, this statement is correct, however, if you post that document for PUBLIC viewing (as Obama did), you have waived your privacy, period.
I do not waive my rights by showing private documents on my own terms.
If you really need a law to understand reality, research dear friend, some of us rely on experience.
and HIPPA, you are joking, right ???
tell that to the people who regularly find their medical records in a ditch alongside a road somewhere
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Undertough
you can believe whatever you choose, i am not a professional researcher however, i certainly do research subjects of interest
i never addressed the signature claim until you asked.
perhaps you are asking the wrong poster.
i looked at the 7/5 subpoena after you asked and found it illegible, but then again, i wasn't there (were you?).
also, i don't know the Deputy Clerk and have no interest in verifying his/her signature ... the subpoena has already been accepted and acted upon.
why would you doubt the credibility of a filed motion? isn't that the job of the Clerk?
hmmm, considering we are viewing the same document (dated 7/5/2011 - to Loretta Fuddy) the DC signature is located at the bottom of the subpoena where it is indicated "Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk" and the phrase Deputy Clerk is underlined. The space for an attorney signature (IF applicable) remains empty.
So, are you claiming Orly fraudulently signed the name of the Deputy Clerk OR that the signature is some other than the DCs?
my apology, someone else claimed a procedural problem ... 4nsicphd
however, you requested confirmation of the signature ...and, you don't even identify to which document you refer.
Could you kindly name the clerk of the court that signed that? That seems to be the only thing I am having trouble with.
so, you ask the name of the clerk who signed "what" exactly?
apparently you didn't look at ALL of the court documents so please specify to which you refer.
secondly ... you presume fraudulent behavior to gain what? in some circles, this could be considered slander ...just cause you "swear it" doesn't mean it's true.
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.
then you went further and addressed me directly with ...me thinks you are addressing the wrong person unless you care to specify which document and then maybe we can arrive at an answer.
She is still the one that signed it though, right?
Simple yes or no.
Sorry Orly, but your subpoena isn’t valid, and even if it was valid on its face, the Court would have to quash it upon motion of Hawaii. Did you even check the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before sending this off?
Discovery has not started yet. You cannot take any discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1).
You issued a Dist. DC subpoena for a deposition/production to take place in Hawaii. A subpoena has to be issued under the District Court for where the deposition/production is to take place. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2).
Your subpoena was not issued by the court. You are not admitted to practice before either the D.D.C. nor D. Hawaii, therfore you cannot sign a subpoena. An attorney can only sign a subpoena when they are admitted to practice in that district where the deposition/production are to occur, or in the court with the underlying matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3).
Your subpoena is unduly burdensome and can expose you to sanctions, including Hawaii’s attorney fees related to quashing your subpoena. A third party subpoena that requests information that is not relevant to the trial, or reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence is considered unduly burdensome. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1). Your case in DC is over a FOIA request from SSA. Hawaii has nothing to do with social security. Birth certificates are unrelated to request to SSA, because SSA has nothing to do with birth certificates. Your subpoena is not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.
Upon request from Hawaii, the Court is required to quash your subpoena. A court is required to quash a subpoena when the documents requested are privileged or protected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(C)(3)(iii). Hawaii law prohibits the release of birther certificates to people who do not have a direct tangible interest. That means the documents are “otherwise protected.” The subpoena will be quashed.
Originally posted by Undertough
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Undertough
in and of itself, this statement is correct, however, if you post that document for PUBLIC viewing (as Obama did), you have waived your privacy, period.
I do not waive my rights by showing private documents on my own terms.
So my statement is correct, but wrong. Um...sure. You are going to need to provide the legal basis for that statement.
If you really need a law to understand reality, research dear friend, some of us rely on experience.
When discussing privacy law the law seems rather important. How do you even attempt to suggest there is a difference between the law and reality? I did not know laws were not real.
and HIPPA, you are joking, right ???
tell that to the people who regularly find their medical records in a ditch alongside a road somewhere
Show me those people.
I notice you failed to dispute what I said about HIPPA.