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.

 

Judge Has [not] Ruled, Obama [not] Off Of Ballot In Georgia! (erroneous news report)

page: 45
122
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by candcantiques
Anything else?


Pity your story has not much truth in it, and Obama remains the legal POTUS, and will get re-elected!
edit on 27-1-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by candcantiques
Anything else?


Pity your story has not much truth in it, and Obama remains the legal POTUS, and will get re-elected!
edit on 27-1-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)


Well I think you have just shown your inability to prove me and my thread incorrect. Sorry but your savior is going down and you have no answers.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


You SAY that my story hasnt much truth but you CANNOT PROVE that anything I have quoted is not the truth.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by candcantiques
You SAY that my story hasnt much truth but you CANNOT PROVE that anything I have quoted is not the truth.


I have, and you cannot prove most of what you claim....

remember, Obama is the legal POTUS, a fact that you hate!



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


You have proven nothing. I have proven in my posts that the original story started with a man that brought the charges in the first place. I have proven that he was in the judges chambers. I have proven that Obama lost the case by default judgement. I have proven he has no right to the office because he is not a natural born citizen. You on the other hand have nothing but retoric on your side.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Excuse me, I am wrong about one thing. You have proven that you have a good fight in you but you allow your pride to get in the way and instead of admiting that you are wrong and fighting for what is right you choose to protect your pride instead. I used to be that way to. I grew up.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by candcantiques
I have proven that Obama lost the case by default judgement.


Except no such judgement has been made.... that is something you just made up!

the heading of this thread was even changed as you were wrong....


I have proven he has no right to the office because he is not a natural born citizen


You have not proven that at all, except in your own mind. Your hatred for Obama has clouded your judgement
edit on 27-1-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by candcantiques
I have proven that Obama lost the case by default judgement.


Except no such judgement has been made.... that is something you just made up!


I have proven he has no right to the office because he is not a natural born citizen


You have not proven that at all, except in your own mind. Your hatred for Obama has clouded your judgement


WOAH! hold on there. I didnt make ANYTHING UP. I reported the EXACT words of the man that brought the charges against Obama. How in the world do you state that I made it up when I am quoting someone else? HUH?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by candcantiques
I didnt make ANYTHING UP.


yes you did, remember this?

"I have proven that Obama lost the case by default judgement"

You made that up, as no such judgement has been recorded....



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Here are HIS words NOT mine. HE brought the lawsuit. HE was in the judges chambers. These are HIS words. and Oh by the way. If he is lying why hasnt anyone stepped forward to call him out huh?




A MESSAGE FROM CARL SWENSSON...

To all my friends in battle,

The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor, since the Defense council failed to show, and wanted to end it there. We argued that all the evidence needed to be entered in to record so the Judge allowed for a speedy hearing where all evidence was entered into the court record. What that means is this… Any appeal, if one is even possible, would be based on the evidence provided by the lawyers in each case. Both Van Irion and My lawyer, Mark Hatfield made certain that our cases and evidence in those two cases would be closed so as not to be affiliated, in any way, with “Birther” Orly Taitz. As expected, she was an embarrassment.

Now we’re merely awaiting the publishing of this Judge’s ruling which, as previously stated, will be a Default Judgment.

In other words…we won. Now it’s time for the rest of the States to take my lead and duplicate this effort.

Carl




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 


I didnt make it up. Those are Carl Swenssons words as he was in the judges chambers and heard the judge say this




The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by candcantiques
Here are HIS words NOT mine.


care to show exactly where he said "I have proven that Obama lost the case by default judgement"?

you said that, and it is not true....



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


You keep saying I made it up. I didnt. Quit calling me a liar. I didnt make it up. Here listen to him live on the radio here[url=



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Right here


The Judge pulled the lawyers for the three cases into chambers before it all began and advised them that he would be issuing a default judgment in our favor,



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Listen to Carl Swenson on a live interview at the link I posted above where he reiterates that the judge told him and others in chambers that he is going to issue a default judgement AGAINST obama.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


If Carl Swensson is lying he is in for jail time for giving interviews like this that are not true by quoting a judge as having said something that he did not. How in the world is he going to achieve his goal if he lies about a judges quote and winds up in jail himself. Think man think.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Why in the world would the judge or the Secretary of State allow themselves to be quoted incorrectly. You think they dont know about these blogs? Hell it's on the Ulsterman report. I guarantee you they know of the Ulsterman report and a judge and the Secretary of State are going to allow themselves to be misquoted. Yea sure they are. They would be bringing charges so fast it isnt funny. Swansson would already be in jail. Think man think.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
45 pages of a waste of time!--why are posts allowed that are untrue, only to be followed up with the so-called truth, when really the first untruth is the truth to begin with and that Obama has likley paid off so many people it is just a sick joke!

A sick, sick joke, whereby liars and blackmailers, psychopaths and narcissists, perverts and paedophiles win the top spots and the good guys finish last, live or dead!

A psychopath has no conscience,so will still step out in public to smile and lie and receive praise and applause from his sheeple.

A 'good' man, caught in far less an infraction, is close to immobilized with guilt when discovered...he 'borrowed' a stamp from the company (just until he went to the post office himself) then was arrested and taken away to never be seen again!



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 


You have pasted this several times, but I can't find where the first one is to see if you posted its source. You really should mark it as an external quoted source and provide the link. Claiming it as your own is plagiarism and against the rules of ATS.
Anyway as you are begging for it to be analysed in detail, and I have nothing better to do at the moment. (I'll probably run out of space, so this will be in several posts).


A "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the USA of two (2) U.S. Citizens.

Wrong. As pointed out to you many, many times, the SCOTUS case United States v Wong Kim Ark settled that question in 1898. As your source for this mistaken idea, beyond the echo chamber you copied it from, is the SCOTUS case Minor v Happerstat, I'll include a very precise analysis of that case here: source)


The court didn’t say Minor wasn’t a 14th amendment citizen. That’s absurd. What they said was that the 14th amendment, didn’t create a right to vote. Before the 14th Amendment, the Constitution was silent on who was and who was not a citizen (except through the definition of natural born citizen based on English Common Law, which the Court in Smith v Alabama said was where to look for definitions of terms not defined in the Constitution, common law that said natural born subjects were those born in the country without regard for the status of the parents).
If you read Minor, the court said that based on the Constitution there were exactly two classes of citizen: natural born and naturalized. The court said that it was unquestionably so that those born of citizen parents in the country were natural born citizens. It then said that whether the children of aliens born in the country were citizens or not was in dispute. Since it was not necessary to consider the case of the children of aliens, the court didn’t go there. However, the distinction remains, either natural born or naturalized. Virginia Minor was natural born because she met the undoubted criteria of being born in the country to citizen parents.
[The] Supreme Court, in US v Wong in 1898 decided that the children of aliens born in the country ARE US citizens, and so by the two citizenship classes [in] Minor, they must be natural born, since they aren’t naturalized.
I guess that I must mention that every legal scholar in history has said the same thing. Before the crank theory of Leo Donofrio, no one in the history of the United States ever said that someone born a citizen in the United States was not a natural born citizen. Some, before Wong, argued that they were not citizens, but all understood that if they were, they could run for President.


edit on 28/1/2012 by rnaa because: correct WKA SCOTUS case year



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


[quote from other thread]


........
The FFaC clause requires the State of Georgia to acknowledge an officially certified Birth Certificate from Hawai'i as genuine.

Since Obama's Birth Certificates are officially certified, and all the security emblems are there (signature of issuing official, raised or colored seal, security paper) and Hawai'i clearly places it under FF&C (with the phrase "This document serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding"), the Birth Certificates will be accepted on its face.

By the way, notice that the Birth Certificates presented will not be photocopies or computer scans - those are not Birth Certificates, they are images of Birth Certificates. The Birth Certificate is the paper document that physically printed and certified by the State of Hawai'i.



Why wasn't the Full Faith and Credit Clause used ?

All Obama's lawyers had to do was produce a real certificate I thought.



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join