BIG NEWS- Arpaio: Obama birth record 'definitely fraudulent'

TextBut do tell me, what has he done to hide his past? Many of the things you are complaining about are hidden by default, without need of action by him.

reply to post by flyswatter


Flyswatter -
I agree that normally I would have no right to pry into any ones affairs but suppose you were one of Obama's constituents that sat in front of him as shouted time and again on exactly how he would be open to all inquiries of him and be the first transparent president in America. I regard that promise as a unwritten contract between Obama and those who voted for him.

The birther situation did not appear overnight. It came about with Hillary Clinton asked for his proof of Obama being eligible to be a candidate during their campaigning against each other. Now remember this is within the democratic party itself and not a Republican birther gang, Hillary knew then that Obama was not vetted thoroughly but her request was ignored by the bosses that ran the democratic national committee, which by the way were Pelosi and her crowd.

Even though I cannot prove any of this because I was not there, I do believe that there was cause right there to suspect. From there it gradually took off into a big mess.That is why there were so many lawsuits to indict Obam's records one by one. Each attempt was either futile or the records simply disappeared. Now that a re election is on the table there are states rights and obligations to the voting Americans to know as much as possible about any candidate. That vetting process is to protect this Republic from fraud.

The proof of eligibility in Obama's case is questioned by a great number of the voting block. That is their right to question and it is the responsibility of the candidate to show the proof. The only fair way to solve this matter is to have a congressional appointed non partisan investigation if nothing else can satisfy the voting block. This is not a case of a private citizen but a case of a public servant of the United States. There is a great difference. This man wanted to be president and no one forced him into this office. The American voter has the right to know if this man is a fraud or not a fraud.

If Obama has nothing to hide then why not be transparent and show as many records as are needed. That was his promise and that was the promise that many people voted on in support of Obama. Instead we have this secretive air about this man that leads people to suspect. At the very onset of inquiry the governor of Hawaii stated that he would comply. He then stonewalled till he was forced to say that he could not find the record of Obama's birth. That simply added to suspect. The last birth record that was submitted by Obama is found to be forged by a great many experts in that field of forensic documents. They could be wrong and they could also be right but to not satisfy the voter is to steal his right to know.and that is constitutionally wrong.

In order to satisfy this entire conflict was to view the original microfilm of his birth record or view other recorded proof of birth. Obama could have avoided all of this mess by simply allowing release of records but instead chose to hide his entire past. That is where private records were needed. That would have been the cheapest way out of this entire mess.and that is the why sheriff Joe sent his posse to Hawaii to view the microfilm. Once again it was stonewalled and we still have a big mess. I am willing to accept what ever a team of experts reveal but I am not willing to accept this mess of doubt that taints this nation. This could go on forever but to cut this short that is my reason Flyswatter and I believe that my reason is justified.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by flyswatter

 

They dont provide it because they dont have to, but the reason that they dont have to is because of privacy laws in place that specifically forbid it.

Do you not see how completely absurd this argument is?

If you get pulled over by the police and they want to see your proof of insurance and you don't have it, is it easier to simply go into court and show the judge your proof if insurance or is it easier to hire a lawyer to fight the case and prove that you have a common law right to travel that is protected by sovereign privacy and proof of insurance is not needed?

Because you can make that argument.

It will cost you a stupid amount of money and you need to prove that your driver's license obligation to meet state statutory driving code is an adhesion contract and you are seeking relief in the form of a nullified contract.

Yes you can make this argument.

And it is no different than what Barry and his lawyers are doing.

All he has to do is provide a certified long form BC.

We have to do it when we get a job.
Why should the privacy laws protect him and not me?

It does not make sense.

edit on 22/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)

I'm not saying that to make argument for it, I'm simply stating it as a fact. I was careful with my words and did not inject opinion into that matter, as it would defeat the purpose of what I was stating.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by habitforming

 

By saying that they didn't refuse to testify under oath, you are inferring that they did testify. Please prove that. You have passed over the video that shows they did refuse so twice; and continue asking for proof. If that isn't; then what more do you require?

edit on 22-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

Negative, sir. He is not inferring they did testify. When saying that they didn't refuse, that could also mean that it has never been requested by the court for them to testify.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

But I did post the law. . Common law is the law.Org is reserved for sites for educational purposes only. They can not post anything that can not be validated on their site.

If we practice common law; and it came from Roman law, and Roman Law practiced capitis deminutio maxima

What can you not get? That would make it part of our code.

edit on 22-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

No no no, you are wrong here. I've stayed out of this part of the argument for most of the thread, but the law of the land is the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is the supreme authority. If this law is not on the books here, not in the constitution, and/or has not been dealt with by the Supreme Court, it means nothing.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by habitforming

 

Well of course you can; he's your employee. That's why McDonalds and other fast food restaurants and chains can make workers do so under dangerous conditions. Like cleaning out hot fry boxes and getting 3rd degree burns.

So you are not even being remotely serious here?
Are you actually doing parody?
If you believe you can order the president to wash your car because he is your employee then there is really no point in continuing to treat you like a rational person.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by habitforming

 

By saying that they didn't refuse to testify under oath, you are inferring that they did testify.

Listen, son. This crap is not cute, funny, entertaining, or fruitful. Stop trying to misconstrue things and have a real conversation.
They were never ordered to testify. That means they BOTH did not testify AND did not refuse to testify.

This is a very simple concept.

Please prove that. You have passed over the video that shows they did refuse so twice; and continue asking for proof. If that isn't; then what more do you require?

edit on 22-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

Name the officials that were ordered and refused then.

reply to post by flyswatter

Negative, sir. He is not inferring they did testify. When saying that they didn't refuse, that could also mean that it has never been requested by the court for them to testify.

They were requested in court, but the judge did not order it because New Jersey does not require a birth certificate to be on the ballot.

They could have very easily provided a certified copy for the court.

VERY EASILY.

The best anyone can do is say that they don't have to.

THAT IS IT.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by habitforming

 

All you can do is laugh about it? Please show me your birth certificate or any other that is written in lower case letters just like you are supposed to spell your name except for the first letters. You can't; because that's not how they create Birth Certificates. Obviously Reagan's is a fake. The registrar's signature on his was dated over 30 years after he was born. What do you call that?

I call that you not understanding anything you are saying. The registrars signature on mine is dated 22 years after I was born. That is because...that is when I got it. They do not pre-sign a stack of certificates just hoping someone will come along and request one 22 years later.

Or the fact that the official registering of all Births as Birth Certificates on bank note paper just like his is supposedly done, was not put into official practice until after he was born..

edit on 22-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

Why do you just keep making crazy ass claims?

All you have done is spew crazy all over this thread and refuse to even try to back any of it up.
That is not how you convince people of anything. That is how you remind people you think what you think. You do not like Obama. Got it. No one cares.

Its kind of funny how this is getting forgotten about since the Colorado shooting....

just sayin...

reply to post by kyviecaldges


If it's as easy to get your BC as you say it is, then I challenge you to get your BC and put it up on this site for all to see.

After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Unless you think you're better than a black man.

reply to post by flyswatter


en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

It refers to all of the laws in force within a country or region, including both statute law and common law.

en.wikipedia.org...

A common example of a legal fiction is a corporation, which is regarded in many jurisdictions as a 'person' that has many of the same legal rights and responsibilities as a natural person. Legal fictions are mostly encountered under common law systems.

www.latin-dictionary.org...

Blacks Law Dictionary – Revised 4th Edition 1968, provides a more comprehensive definition as follows …

Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization) In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.

Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John Doe) - The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.

Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

Diminutio. Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or depravation.

Capite. - Lat. By the head.

As Black's Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one's natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method, by which the State causes a natural person to "volunteer" himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn't willingly form such an unlawful but legally reductionist joinder, so trickery and obfuscation are used; and this starts when our birth certificates are created.

So the argument is Ancient Roman law applies to the Constitution so therefore Obama can't be born in Hawaii?



Holy crap, the length Birthers will go to.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by habitforming

 

That is not my problem, that's yours. The video of the court case is exactly where the state of Hawaii and officials refused to testify under oath or producing a birth certificate; by citing Hawaii state law.

If you can't watch the video to find the proof, that's your problem. I provided what was asked of me.

I actually cannot watch the video.
Now what?
Just name the officials that refused.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by flyswatter

 

Negative, sir. He is not inferring they did testify. When saying that they didn't refuse, that could also mean that it has never been requested by the court for them to testify.

They were requested in court, but the judge did not order it because New Jersey does not require a birth certificate to be on the ballot.

They could have very easily provided a certified copy for the court.

VERY EASILY.

The best anyone can do is say that they don't have to.

THAT IS IT.

So the judge did not order them to appear in court, gotcha. This does not mean that they refused to be there - it means that they were not required, so they did not go. Could they have been there anyway? Well, I guess so, as I dont think there was anything to actively prevent it from happening.

And they could not just provide a copy of the birth certificate on a whim. A judge would have to issue an order to have it shown, or a subpoena would have to be obtained to force it. Had someone just said "Hey, by the way, here's a certified copy," they would have violated privacy laws and likely lost their job because of it.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

In the first 30 seconds of the video, Obama admitted that he was born in Kenya, and later Michelle stated that when they took a trip to Africa and visited his home place of Kenya...

edit on 22-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

Don't you ever start to think there is a problem with your premise when you have to make up crap to push it?
Michelle said they visited his home place of Kenya?
No she did not.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter

 

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

It refers to all of the laws in force within a country or region, including both statute law and common law.

en.wikipedia.org...

A common example of a legal fiction is a corporation, which is regarded in many jurisdictions as a 'person' that has many of the same legal rights and responsibilities as a natural person. Legal fictions are mostly encountered under common law systems.

www.latin-dictionary.org...

Blacks Law Dictionary – Revised 4th Edition 1968, provides a more comprehensive definition as follows …

Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization) In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.

Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John Doe) - The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man's family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.

Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

Diminutio. Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or depravation.

Capite. - Lat. By the head.

As Black's Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one's natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method, by which the State causes a natural person to "volunteer" himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn't willingly form such an unlawful but legally reductionist joinder, so trickery and obfuscation are used; and this starts when our birth certificates are created.

The phrase law of the land is a legal term, equivalent to the Latin lex terrae (or legem terrae in the accusative case). It refers to all of the laws in force within a country or region, including both statute law and common law.

The Law of the Land is Common Law, and the Supremacy Clause states:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land...."

So to review - Common Law is contained within Law of the Land. Law of the Land is the Constitution and all laws and treaties under the authority of the United States.

This means that your interpretation of all of this means exactly nothing now.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

Click on the link for Roman trials and see where it takes you.

en.wikipedia.org...

What form of government did Rome operate under?

A republic..

What do you think that means?
We all have exactly the same laws?
Odd seeing as how they did not have capital letters, how could they have laws pertaining to them?
Why would we follow Rome's laws?
Do you think all Republics have all the same laws?
Laws are not even the same within our Republic.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by spoor

 

Because the constitution founded a republic not a democracy, therefore bits of Roman law would be incorporated into our system, just like little bits of influence from Greece's Democracy did.

Bits?
Which bits?
How come you cannot show anything pertaining to these bits?
Please explain exactly which bits you speak of and yes, I will expect you to be able to back it up too.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges


They were requested in court, but the judge did not order it because New Jersey does not require a birth certificate to be on the ballot.

If the judge did not order it...then why the # would they bother?
Would you fly halfway around the world for someone who was just being a prick if you did not have to?

They could have very easily provided a certified copy for the court.

VERY EASILY.

The best anyone can do is say that they don't have to.

THAT IS IT.

But they do not have to. So what good would it do to produce one?
That makes no sense at all.
Are you expecting someone to declare Obama more eligible?

reply to post by habitforming


Watch the video...