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: Obama eligible to be Georgia candidate

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I love that we have such superior law professionals here on ATS than they do in the court system.

If only all the constitutional experts on ATS could run the world.


I practiced law in two states and in Federal Court and won most of my cases on Constitutional arguements.

From a legal point of view I find this interesting. According to what I have read, Plaintiff's were offered a Summary Judgment in chambers but insisted on a limited evidentary hearing. Understand, a Summary Judgment is a judgment based on the filed pleadings (papers) rather than a Default Judgment based upon an unresponsive Defendant. Based upon the opinion and ruling posted, the judge gave no credibility to the in-court evidence which was the same as the documentary evidence filed that he had (apparently) found sufficient to enter a Summary Judgment in Chambers. His reasoning is because the experts were not properly proffered as experts (a simple legal procedure.) Since this was to be a modified hearing of sorts, the experts were not properly proffered and I suspect this was not overlooked but merely considered an unnecessary formality by the Plaintiffs, based upon the in Chambers conversations. However, on the other hand, there seems to be no objection as to them being presented as experts so their opinion, without objection, should have been taken as expert testimony or at least undisputed evidence. (Of course I wasn't there.) Note-this was the same evidence considered in the motions that the judge considered in Chambers where he allegedly said he would grant a Summary Judgment rather than a Default Judgment. Since the judge had offered a Summary Judgment and the Defendant (Obama) put on no defense, this should have been a slam dunk. I suspect pressure on the Court from outside sources. To me the problem may be legally resolved but not morally resolved. Perhaps my grandchildren will be able to see the original Certificate of Live Birth in the Smithsonian and they will know the truth




posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthship35
Of corse he did..LOL almost pissing my pants that any of you idiots thought you could actually do anything to bring the truth to light..My advice find a very safe place out of usa and prepare for what the very small percentage of us(you know who you are)KNOW what is coming..food,protection,well.you get the idea..Those of you who have a clue don't need me to spell it out..WOW..see ya all on the other side it's been fun..


LOL... i know exactly what you speak of man. I'm a US citizen that "escaped" last May for as long as I can stay away. I served in the military and didn't know the definition of freedom 'till the day I got out. And then wanted more, so I went to the South Pacific. Now I see that the only "true" realistic freedom today in America is the ability to buy anything you want, mostly. Such a better life down here. I'm glad I left and I wont't support the corrupt system until "the right" person is running the show, that doesn't play chess with other world nations over nuclear, oil and archaeological discoveries. I chose a better quality of life for sure.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
has anyone seen ron pauls birth certificate ?

oh wait, white guy named Ron, no need to



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 



I practiced law in two states and in Federal Court and won most of my cases on Constitutional arguements.

From a legal point of view I find this interesting. According to what I have read, Plaintiff's were offered a Summary Judgment in chambers but insisted on a limited evidentary hearing.


So let me get this straight.

You have practiced law...and you take internet rumors posted on a birthers blog as truth?


edit on 4-2-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I read everything I can. There was more than once source on the original information. Rumors can lead to facts. Facts can lead to evidence. Unfortunately the evidence may have been hidden in this case. That is the issue. We still do not know. This was basically a ruling on insufficient evidence. It is not proof or dis-proof of Obama's natural birth citizenship or his Certificate of Live Birth.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I think the problem is the average person is to embarrassed to admit that they were wrong.

they are to close minded to think for themselves..

their ignorance is giving the argument strength..

their recognizing the slavery all around jeopardizes the imagined freedom..

they are brainwashed into believing war is peace.. might makes right.. through fear tactics, herding etc..

tell me OP..

if you applied for a job and did not pass an E Verify check do you think you would get hired?

if you were an employer and someone applied and did not pass the E Verify check.. would you hire them?




Obama E Verify Check



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Whats with the pissing match, man? You contribute nothing, yet you address anyone with their own opinion on the matter in a sarcastic tone.

Definition of "useless".

We get it, you think birthers are morons, and anyone who even considers the issue interesting an idiot. You want a prize? Give it a rest...



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


enough with the racist crap..

that only goes to show your ignorance..



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Nite_wing
 



I practiced law in two states and in Federal Court and won most of my cases on Constitutional arguements.

From a legal point of view I find this interesting. According to what I have read, Plaintiff's were offered a Summary Judgment in chambers but insisted on a limited evidentary hearing.


So let me get this straight.

You have practiced law...and you take internet rumors posted on a birthers blog as truth?


edit on 4-2-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



So let me get this straight..

You have no connection to this case nor evidence either way ... and I'm supposed to take your internet rumor posted here as truth?


edit on 4-2-2012 by reeferman because: lmfao



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Thermo Klein
 



Don't change the subject.... you're claiming that it's a "fact" that people question his birth certificate because he's half-black and thse who question it are racist. It's an attrocious, proposterous assumption on your part. If you wish to take it back it might be in ur best interest or you can go on letting us think you're ... well... nuf said.


Why should he take it back...birthers have proven it themselves.

They asked for a BC...he gave it, they said it wasn't enough. They demanded a long form BC, he gave it, they said it was fake
They brought it to court, he lauged at them...they said it would be his doom....they lost.

And now...birthers will still continue.

There is only one force on earth that causes such irrational and illogical stupidity....racism.

Never before has this been an issue....don't try to blow smoke up our arse and say it's just a coincidence that the man in question is black.


Birthers....You have a black President....deal with it....and move on....the world is not as racist and ignorant as all of you are.


the only person bringing up racism continually here is you.

I have half african american children myself, an uncle whos Indian, a grandpa who's cuban.. I'm german. I could go on & on, and so could everyone else here on ATS.

you are the only one calling that BS out..

enough with the straw man racist argument already..

that fact remains the POTUS fails any ordinary background check period.

Hawaii was the easiest state to forge birth records..

what is your point?

who is paying you to shill this all day long, acting like a spoiled brat?



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Has anyone considered that Orly herself may be presenting all these "frivolous" claims for a hidden reason ?

Maybe her back door funding is coming from the cover up itself.

Her true goal may be to actually set up some precedent.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Please, show me what good he has done for this country. He damaged it by, oh let's see, raising the deficit, to almost $16Trillion, in 3 years, just to start. Or how about the NDAA? Obamacare, ummm, or maybe the fact that he constantly manipulates things to make it seem like we are recovering, since many people were hired, (then fired) or hired in government jobs. government jobs do NOT generate money, they only cost tax dollars, his spending is out of control, and he wants to spend MORE money. How did he NOT damage this country? free healthcare? well, SOMEONE is paying for it. It's NOT free. He made it easier to live on welfare than to get a real job, he waged a military campaign in Libya, costing millions, it's ridiculous to seriously back this guy up. DON"T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HOW HE WAS JUST GIVEN A BAD HAND FROM BUSH, i don't support him either, but that seems to be all people can say when you say anything bad about the almighty obama, that poor fella just had a poor economy handed to him, it's not his fault.


So many times people say "show me numbers, show me facts, blah blah blah" how about people actually start showing legitimate facts, not distorted numbers, or crappy bar graphs, and say what good he did, and tell me how it is so good, and how it hurts nothing, only helps?



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
On another note, why is not liking a man who is black, make you racist? I hope those who accuse people of racism understand that racism is NOT "when a white man disagrees with any viewpoint, personal OR political, of another person who is not white." There is no such thing as reverse racism. Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of the person making comments or assumptions based on race.

With that being said, there is more racism and bigotry going on here than you (you know who you are) would like to think. Accusing EVERY SINGLE WHITE person who disagrees with obama, as being a racist, is in turn, a bigot themselves. and don't get me wrong, there are white people here as well, who say the same thing about other white people who don't like a "man who is black"



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing

I practiced law in two states and in Federal Court and won most of my cases on Constitutional arguements.


No. I do not think so. There is no way the above can be true and then you go on to write what lies below. No actual lawyer would write these things.


From a legal point of view I find this interesting. According to what I have read, Plaintiff's were offered a Summary Judgment in chambers but insisted on a limited evidentary hearing. Understand, a Summary Judgment is a judgment based on the filed pleadings (papers) rather than a Default Judgment based upon an unresponsive Defendant. Based upon the opinion and ruling posted, the judge gave no credibility to the in-court evidence which was the same as the documentary evidence filed that he had (apparently) found sufficient to enter a Summary Judgment in Chambers.


That is where it becomes clear that you only practice law the same way I practice the piano; in order to get it right eventually. Not there yet.

Judges allow things to be entered into evidence. Allowing said items into evidence does NOT mean the judge has decided said evidence is already sufficient to prove a case. Obviously he allowed it to be entered and upon examination made a judgement on it. That is how that works in court.

[quopte] His reasoning is because the experts were not properly proffered as experts (a simple legal procedure.)

Do you not agree with that? Or do you not agree that it is important said experts actually be the experts they are supposed to be?


Since this was to be a modified hearing of sorts, the experts were not properly proffered and I suspect this was not overlooked but merely considered an unnecessary formality by the Plaintiffs, based upon the in Chambers conversations.


Why are you suspecting anything when all this information has been put out there for you. You even addressed it. It was not a matter of them not being properly demonstrated as experts per the plaintiffs mistake it was based on the actual demonstration of what their expertise applies to.


However, on the other hand, there seems to be no objection as to them being presented as experts so their opinion, without objection, should have been taken as expert testimony or at least undisputed evidence.


Seriously where on Earth did you practice law? Just because a judge tells you that you can go ahead and offer your "expert" witness does not mean the judge has to accept that testimony as expert testimony, especially if the judge finds your "expert" label lacking the proper backing. A court reporter would know this stuff let alone anyone that practiced law.


(Of course I wasn't there.) Note-this was the same evidence considered in the motions that the judge considered in Chambers where he allegedly said he would grant a Summary Judgment rather than a Default Judgment. Since the judge had offered a Summary Judgment and the Defendant (Obama) put on no defense, this should have been a slam dunk.


Why should it have been a slam dunk? If you accuse me of murder and I refuse to show up at your trial for me, taht does not make me guilty. That is not how courts work. It makes me someone who failed to defend myself. Unfortunately that does not always make you guilty. You cannot be convicted of a crime you did not commit just because you failed to defend yourself against the charge properly. There is no such law or precedent anywhere that would back you up on that.


I suspect pressure on the Court from outside sources.


Why don't you suspect reality?


To me the problem may be legally resolved but not morally resolved. Perhaps my grandchildren will be able to see the original Certificate of Live Birth in the Smithsonian and they will know the truth


What do you expect it to say that would be different from the image of it we have already been shown?



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by Still
 


If you're right why not include the pertinent part and not just the post-script note?



Holy crap! Really?

Ok I am not sure I can dumb this down to the appropriate level and I really do not mean that to call you dumb but what you just posted is beyond crazy.

The pertinent part is the post script. That is why...
1. It is in a post script.
2. It is a post script summarizing important information about the entire above set of paragraphs.
3. It shows how the process you are hanging you hat on has been ammended and no longer of value for what you want it to be.

That was the pertinent part. I provided a link so anyone could go check it out. What you just posted only helped me.




Number Has Three Parts

The nine-digit SSN is composed of three parts:
•The first set of three digits is called the Area Number
•The second set of two digits is called the Group Number
•The final set of four digits is the Serial Number

Area Number

The Area Number is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant's mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.

Generally, numbers were assigned beginning in the northeast and moving westward. So people on the east coast have the lowest numbers and those on the west coast have the highest numbers.

Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.


And do you understand why the post script is AFTER the rest?


So, fair enough.... for some reason he apparently went to a state he's never lived in to get his first SSN.


No, you are not reading what you just posted at all. You posted it then wrote the sentence above that contradicts the information both you and I have now posted. Please read it.


Odd but no proof of anything illegal. For my own sanity I won't ask why he had two different SSNs for when he worked at Baskin-Robbins and when he applied for his student loans


For my sanity I will ask you to demonstrate to me that you know Barack had two SSNs for when he worked at Baskin Robins and that it is true. Can you? Also for my sanity, explain how that has anything to do with your erroneous claim that he has a SSN issued from CT?



Enjoy your policing...

edit on 4-2-2012 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)


Policing?

Is that what you call sticking to the facts?

I thought ATS had a motto of some kind.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by spoor
the ones claiming silly things like SSN's are state based



They ARE state-based by what state your mailing address is in...


Not according to the Social Security Administration. I posted that myself. You posted it yourself again thinking it debunked me. Between you and myself, we have both posted the actual words from the SSA pointing out what you just wrote is NOT TRUE.


Please see alternate posts where people are actually using facts from the Social Security Office to address this.


Show me one. You are referring to people you do not know, posting personal stories online and calling them facts. I posted the actual facts from the SSA themselves and you do not believe it. Instead you believe random online posters telling you stories. I have a story. My SSN starts with 128. What state was I born in and where did I get my first job?



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by tkwasny
Obama could have been born in the Lincoln Bedroom of 1600 Penn. Ave and that assured him to ONLY be a US citizen, not a natural born citizen. BOTH parents (notice plural) MUST be US citizens at the time of the childs birth.

FACTS not party line assumptions.

...

law2.umkc.edu...



MINOR v. HAPPERSETT
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162; 21 Wall. 162
OCTOBER, 1874, Term
[Unanimous decision of the Supreme Court holding that the Constitution of the United States
does not guarantee to women the right to vote in federal elections.]
Have you read Minor? It explicitly states that it does not challenge the idea that someone could be natural-born to foreign parents.

From your own link:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
(emphasis added)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
For my own sanity I won't ask why he had two different SSNs for when he worked at Baskin-Robbins and when he applied for his student loans


Because he didnt - care to provide proof that he did?


Because he did - care to provide proof that he didn't?

nice argument style there



You are the one making the claim that he had two SSNs.
Can you please tell me why you are not the one having to back up your claim?

Are you really asking people to just believe you?
Can I ask you to just believe me?



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Let me kill the thread....or at least try to get everyone on the same page...

To date, "Natural Born Citizen" has not been absolutely defined by any law and/or constitutional amendment; therefore (given the evidence presented to date), any and all arguments against Obama are pointless.
_________________________________

NOW,

How about we band together as one and demand a constitutional amendment that clearly, leaving no room for interpretation, spells out the exact requirements in regards to the eligibility for POTUS.

How would YOU define "Natural Born Citizen" (NBC)?

__________________________________

My thoughts?

If you are born on US soil, you're a NBC...."anchor babies" included. Born to a parent (singular) of US citizenship, you're a NBC; regardless of nation of birth...Must have maintained US residency for a minimum of 20 consecutive years from the date of presidential bid (arbitrary...I know). Must be, at a minimum, 35-years-old (arbitrary, just like the constitution).

__________________________________

NOW, in YOUR own words, define your idea of NBC if/when an amendment is made to the constitution.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mizzijr
reply to post by spoor
 


No other president while in office released it, that I know of. However, there are candidates who has released it while campaigning. If I recall correctly John McCain is one of those candidates.


I would love to see McCain's birth certificate.
Can you tell me where to find it?

Then to the birthers, can you point me to the GOP candidates birth certificates please?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join