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.

 

Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery but disregards “image” as Indication of Obama’s Ineligibility Dama

page: 5
64
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by spoor
 


Just because you get away with something for 3 1/2 years doesn't mean it's legal...it means people are letting him get away with it..quit the racist bull#...its all you ever say....boring.

And just because the attorney admits the online BC isn't acceptable proof doesn't mean it's forged... it means that an online copy of it is simply NOT legal proof, even if its content is 100% correct.




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by jerryznv
 


You said this:


Well written...seems legit...what are the chances of this being a campaign push? Just saying...thing are heating up in the Republican race...maybe this could be underground propaganda! I am no Obama supporter...and I would love to see him go...but I have to consider this might be something other than what is seems to be!


I said this:




reply to post by jerryznv The trial did happen and that was the lawyers defense, still no word on the decision from the judge.


you said this:




This is the first of this I have heard....do you have a link? I am talking about this being propaganda from the republican party...I wasn't aware of an trial about that!


Why would you say this is the first you heard of it when that is what the thread is about?? The link is in the first post....I replied to you that it is NOT propaganda...

Answered you without being rude...see how that is done?


Yep...I see now...you have enlightened me!

So...the question...my humble one asks...is about the validity of this report!

Now that we have become civil of course!



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate


Old debunked news - he never had access to those records....

www.thefogbow.com...



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate
Signs affidavit declaring long-form, hospital-generated document absent

Just thought I would add this,
www.wnd.com...



At this point, even if Michelle Obama went on Oprah and stated her husband was born in Kenya, it STILL wouldn't matter.
Again...there's something more to this.

Hey...maybe they know Nibiru is heading our way and we'll never see November anyway



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 







But she also argued, after Judge Masin asked her repeatedly, that Obama need not produce any evidence at all.


Seems our lawmakers take this situation very lightly,

Maybe they are all afraid,

I think I know why.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 






Hey...maybe they know Nibiru is heading our way and we'll never see November anyway


That would be my guess,




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


no I don't think it is at all to be honest, I think the idea is quite absurd. But I have a feeling some will see it that way, not here on ATS but in the country, as a race issue somehow.....I don't really even want to discuss race here.
edit on 14-4-2012 by Bigfoot12714 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TurkeyTots
 





And just because the attorney admits the online BC isn't acceptable proof


acceptable proof or forgery?



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TurkeyTots

All the attorney admitted is that an online version of his birth certificate is not legally accepted proof of birthplace. It has nothing to do with being "forged" or even the President.


Then why was that submitted when Trump (whose in on this somehow) asked them to show proof?
What?...we get sloppy seconds? We're not good enough to see the 'real' birth certificate?

What is SO hard about showing a damn piece of paper (that he's spending millions on to keep sealed)?

Oh no. Nothing suspicious here.
He alone (and his actions) are what's drawing MORE the attention to this entire fiasco.

How come when I get pulled over, I HAVE to show proof of my insurance and drivers license? How about if I tell the nice officer, I'll upload it on the net...and email it to the station by 5PM instead? I'll tell 'em my president gave me that idea



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shoonra
Alexandra M. Hill is an honors graduate of Georgetown Law School.

www.genovaburns.com...

This gives her considerably more traction as a lawyer than Orly Taitz.



I notice that nobody has actually provided her exact words regarding the internet image of the Obama b/c. What she did say was that, up to now, nothing requires Obama to provide his b/c to the State of New Jersey in order to get on the ballot. I seriously doubt that she used the word 'forgery'.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

some words "forgery" are in the videos.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Obama ballot challenge weighed by NJ judge

The crazies have taken twisting words to a new low. The lawyer argues that printouts from the internet are not legal documents or anything for that matter.


Masin permitted some documents to be entered and blocked others, saying “we’re off the far end here” regarding whether printouts off the Internet are legitimate fodder for a court hearing.


The lawyer didn't say anything whatsoever about it being a "forgery".


Attorney Mario Apuzzo, representing two state residents who challenged Obama’s spot in the June primary, tried a bevy of arguments in the course of a three-hour hearing Tuesday, ranging from a study of Colonial-era attorney St. George Tucker to whether the last name used on Obama’s kindergarten registration in Indonesia casts doubts on his identity.

“What evidence does New Jersey have that this person who is running for president is who he is?” Apuzzo said.

Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin has until today to rule but made his intentions clear, saying past court rulings found children of people who, like Obama’s father, weren’t American citizens are natural-born citizens.


So the onus is on the birthers in this latest stretch of the truth - produce the transcript where this lawyer claimed the BC is a forgery, or admit this is a bogus claim yet again from the birther camp and WND.

AFAIK, Apuzzo and his clients showed up in court with "printouts from the internet" to try and prove the BC is a hoax. Last time I checked that could only be done with by forensic analysis of the actual paper docs, which the Hawaii Dept. of Health have already stated had been validly issued in 1961.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shoonra




I notice that nobody has actually provided her exact words regarding the internet image of the Obama b/c.



If we're not getting the 'exact' birth certificate why are we responsible for 'exact' words?

Goes both ways.......I'm just sayin'



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
What can we do as citizens to do something about this?

Legally, what can we do?

How do we get started?


What can we do?..............

That is easy to answer since the answer is in all of our founding documents and the writings of people that actually possessed virtue and dignity, Jefferson, Madison, Jay, Hamilton, Franklin, and the rest of our founders.

"Every form of government degenerates when left to the rulers of the people alone, the people therefore are the only secure sources of power".~Thomas Jefferson

"Even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, through perverse means transformed it into tyranny"~Thomas Jefferson

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

We have a right to "declare the cause" that our government is out of control.

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We are all equally entitled to sovereignty and freedom. That sovereignty and freedom applies to freedom from invasive and intrusive government and unjust action of regulation and control.

" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Our founders understood that the role of government was a protective role to protect the rights and liberties of the people, not to become totalitarian and destroy the rights that government was designed to protect.

" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

In this statement our founders are telling us that it is our duty as free and sovereign citizens to destroy any government that has deviated from Its role of securing the peoples rights and to in turn reinstate the liberty of the people.

" But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Our founders are stating that our duty is to secure our future, therefore it is not the duty of a government or a tyrannical leader to decide what is best for us. Liberty demands that those whom enjoy liberty must be constantly vigilant of the destruction of that liberty and be ready to provide for their own freedom.

Our founders went on to list actions that the King of England had committed against the people of America in order to support their designs of revolution. One of the 25 actions was:

" For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:"

Remember when Obama said he wanted to "Fundamentally Transform America"? That should have been a warning to everyone as to what Obama and the elites had planned for us.

So to answer your question as to what do we do legally to stop this.......its all in our founding documents. We follow in the footsteps of those whom founded this great nation and we secure the survival by doing as they did. We revolt, it doesn't have to be a violent revolt. We need an occupy DC, and it needs to be millions strong. We need to let them know that we are the governors of the government, we do not bow to their desires they obey our wishes. And we need to throw them out (throw off such government) and start anew with people that will serve their constituents, not corporations and big government.

To even ask what we do legally is like asking the wolves to guard the sheep because legal is only what the government decides is right and has nothing to do with righteousness and virtue. This was stated by Jefferson:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around the rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often the tyrants will and always is so when it violates the rights of the individual.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
What is SO hard about showing a damn piece of paper


he showed that in 2008


(that he's spending millions on to keep sealed)?


Why post that lie? I have just tried to get a copy of your birth certificate, you must have spent millions gettingit sealed....


I HAVE to show proof of my insurance and drivers license? How about if I tell the nice officer, I'll upload it on the net...and email it to the station by 5PM instead? I'll tell 'em my president gave me that idea


Another birther made up story, neither Obama or any of his lawyers have claimed that the online image would be used as proof...



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by TurkeyTots

All the attorney admitted is that an online version of his birth certificate is not legally accepted proof of birthplace. It has nothing to do with being "forged" or even the President.


Then why was that submitted when Trump (whose in on this somehow) asked them to show proof?
What?...we get sloppy seconds? We're not good enough to see the 'real' birth certificate?

What is SO hard about showing a damn piece of paper (that he's spending millions on to keep sealed)?

Oh no. Nothing suspicious here.
He alone (and his actions) are what's drawing MORE the attention to this entire fiasco.

How come when I get pulled over, I HAVE to show proof of my insurance and drivers license? How about if I tell the nice officer, I'll upload it on the net...and email it to the station by 5PM instead? I'll tell 'em my president gave me that idea

Because Trump was doing it in the media as a publicity stunt. AKA not a legal environment.

I'm glad you can make analogous situations that are completely irrelevant. Once again, getting pulled over and showing your license/insurance is a LEGAL obligation. The online BC was released to (attempt to) quell the public, not to provide legal proof worthy of a courtroom.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Many of the founders and framers expressed fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future serve as President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. This question of foreign influence was elevated when John Jay considered the additional power granted to the Presidency during times of war, that is when he serves as Commander in Chief of the military. Jay felt strongly that whoever served as President and Commander In Chief during times of war must owe their sole allegiance to and only to the United States. Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President. John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law. Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787: Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link. Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.


www.art2superpac.com...





Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law. B
edit on 14-4-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
It turns out that, first and foremost, the birthers already lost this NJ court case. This "news" about a supposed admission by Obama's lawyers is a sort of red herring to distract from the fact that the birthers lost the case.

The judge's decision can be linked from this:

www.obamaconspiracy.org...

So can the losing lawyer's pleading. This is the same losing lawyer who seems to have floated this story of the admission that the internet image of the b/c is a "forgery" --- except, when he has to reference the admissions of the Obama lawyer to the same judge who heard the admission when it was made, he doesn't even come close to pretending that the word 'forgery' was used; simply that the internet image itself is not legally sufficient as a substitute for the actual paper document with the impression seal.

I might add that the birthers' lawyer seems to have taken the position that it really doesn't matter the Obama's Hawaii b/c is genuine, because he has this theory that the Constitution's requirement of "natural born" means that not only the President must be born here but also that his father must have been a US citizen. This is, of course, absurd. It runs contrary to the precedent of the 21st President, Chester A. Arthur, born in Vermont to an American mother and a British father. It also runs contrary to the precedent of the 1916 Republican nominee for President, Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, born in NY to two British parents. And it runs contrary to several important court decisions, including Lynch v. Clarke (NY Chanc. 1844) 1 Sandf.Chanc. 583, 3 NY Leg.Obs. 236; In re Look Tin Sing (D.Cal. 1884) 21 F. 905; Perkins v. Elg (1939) 307 US 325, 83 L.Ed. 1320, 59 S.Ct 884; etc.

What we have here are birthers, having lost yet again in court, lying to make it sound like they scored a goal.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted 9 July 1868: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The intent and purpose of the (14th) amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens.


www.art2superpac.com...

2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted 9 July 1868:







It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”

The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens.
edit on 14-4-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TurkeyTots
, getting pulled over and showing your license/insurance is a LEGAL obligation.



The words Legal and Obligation are precisely what this is all about my ATS-adversary !



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by TurkeyTots
, getting pulled over and showing your license/insurance is a LEGAL obligation.



The words Legal and Obligation are precisely what this is all about my ATS-adversary !


No, you are claiming that the attorney admitted the online birth certificate was forged. This is simply untrue.



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join