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

reply to post by habitforming


I did not say that. However if part of his Job Description requires him to be a natural-born citizen, I would like to see sufficient proof as his employer. Does YOUR employer not ask for those same credentials? Yes they do.

So you're back. Did you find that law yet? Or are you ready to admid you're repeating non-existing fairy tales?

en.wikipedia.org...

Today, Roman law is no longer applied in legal practice, even though the legal systems of some states like South Africa and San Marino are still based on the old Ius Commune. However, even where the legal practice is based on a code, many rules deriving from Roman law apply: No code completely broke with the Roman tradition. Rather, the provisions of Roman law were fitted into a more coherent system and expressed in the national language. For this reason, knowledge of Roman law is indispensable to understand the legal systems of today. Thus, Roman law is often still a mandatory subject for law students in civil law jurisdictions.

Only England did not take part in the wholesale reception of Roman law. One reason for this is that the English legal system was more developed than its continental counterparts by the time Roman law was rediscovered. Therefore, the practical advantages of Roman law were less obvious to English practitioners than to continental lawyers. As a result, the English system of common law developed in parallel to Roman-based civil law, with its practitioners being trained at the Inns of Court in London rather than receiving degrees in Canon or Civil Law at the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge. Elements of Romano-canon law were present in England in the ecclesiastical courts and, less directly, through the development of the equity system. In addition, some concepts from Roman law made their way into the common law. Especially in the early 19th century, English lawyers and judges were willing to borrow rules and ideas from continental jurists and directly from Roman law.

I also mentioned this further back as well.

Natural-born citizen doesn't just have to deal with being born in America. Hell, the slaves that worked for the Presidents back then were born here, BUT I GUARANTEE YOU, they weren't eligible for president. By having a birth certificate spelling your name in all capital letters on bank note paper, you are doing exactly that. He could have well been born in Hawaii; but the whole forgery with the Birth Certificate is so that the American people can never find out the truth about it.

That's not what I asked for. I asked for you to quote the law. You claim it is so then post it.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
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.

The US Constitution as it was accepted for the unified municipality incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1871 is most definitely based on Roman Law.

The original US Constitution for the united States of America was written to limit the scope of a central government.

It was not written as privilges and immunities to be granted to the citizens of the US.

This idea is based on the Roman Law of the Twelve Tables.

This is reality.
You have been lied to.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Well see there is this thing.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

amid [əˈmɪd], amidst prep in the middle of; among

You want me admist what exactly? A bunch of junior-wannabe lawyers, who can't even tell that if Capitis Diminutio Maxima was a roman law concept, and common law is based on roman law, and we operate under a republic, I have no idea exactly what you'd like me to admit.

Frankly, if you are truly a resident of Finland, just what would you know about American laws anyhow? If you aren't in Finland, why lie?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Good find mate.

This is the reason that our once unalienable common law rights have been replaced by inalienable civil law privileges.
People scream about their civil rights but in reality they have civil privileges.

It says this very thing in the 14th Amendment.

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.

link to source

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

You claim it to be true but you cannot quote the exact law in the books? Your whole idea has been debunked in more than one way. Admitting that you were fooled by nonsense websites would be a good start.
Also who I am, where I am and what I know is irrelevant. Only thing relevant is that little law that doesn't seem to excist.

It truly amazes me how few people in this country take the time to read and understand the very document that rules us.

Amazes me.

en.wikipedia.org...

The United States and most Commonwealth countries are heirs to the common law legal tradition of English law.[15] Certain practices traditionally allowed under English common law were expressly outlawed by the Constitution, such as bills of attainder[16] and general search warrants.[17]

As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis.[18] American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.[19] The actual substance of English law was formally "received" into the United States in several ways.

First, all U.S. states except Louisiana have enacted "reception statutes" which generally state that the common law of England (particularly judge-made law) is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions.[20] Some reception statutes impose a specific cutoff date for reception, such as the date of a colony's founding, while others are deliberately vague.[21] Thus, contemporary U.S. courts often cite pre-Revolution cases when discussing the evolution of an ancient judge-made common law principle into its modern form,[21] such as the heightened duty of care traditionally imposed upon common carriers.[22] Second, a small number of important British statutes in effect at the time of the Revolution have been independently reenacted by U.S. states.

Two examples that many lawyers will recognize are the Statute of Frauds (still widely known in the U.S. by that name) and the Statute of 13 Elizabeth (the ancestor of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act). Such English statutes are still regularly cited in contemporary American cases interpreting their modern American descendants.[23] However, it is important to understand that despite the presence of reception statutes, much of contemporary American common law has diverged significantly from English common law.[24] The reason is that although the courts of the various Commonwealth nations are often influenced by each other's rulings, American courts rarely follow post-Revolution Commonwealth rulings unless there is no American ruling on point, the facts and law at issue are nearly identical, and the reasoning is strongly persuasive. Early on, American courts, even after the Revolution, often did cite contemporary

English cases. This was because appellate decisions from many American courts were not regularly reported until the mid-19th century; lawyers and judges, as creatures of habit, used English legal materials to fill the gap.[25] But citations to English decisions gradually disappeared during the 19th century as American courts developed their own principles to resolve the legal problems of the American people.[26] The number of published volumes of American reports soared from eighteen in 1810 to over 8,000 by 1910.[27] By 1879, one of the delegates to the California constitutional convention was already complaining:

"Now, when we require them to state the reasons for a decision, we do not mean they shall write a hundred pages of detail. We [do] not mean that they shall include the small cases, and impose on the country all this fine judicial literature, for the Lord knows we have got enough of that already."[28] Today, in the words of Stanford law professor Lawrence Friedman: "American cases rarely cite foreign materials. Courts occasionally cite a British classic or two, a famous old case, or a nod to Blackstone; but current British law almost never gets any mention."[29] Foreign law has never been cited as binding precedent, but merely as a reflection of the shared values of Anglo-American civilization or even Western civilization in general.[30]

^ Friedman, 67-69.
^ U.S. Const., Art. 1, §§ 9 and 10.
^ U.S. Const., Amend. IV.
^ John C. Dernbach and Cathleen S. Wharton, A Practical Guide to Legal Writing & Legal Method, 2nd ed. (Buffalo: William S. Hein Publishing, 1994), 34-36.
^ Antonin Scalia and Amy Gutmann, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 3-13.
^ Miles O. Price & Harry Bitner, Effective Legal Research: A Practical Manual of Law Books and Their Use, 3rd ed. (Buffalo: William Hein & Co., 1969), 272.
^ a b Ibid.
^ See, e.g., Gomez v. Superior Court (Walt Disney Co.), 35 Cal. 4th 1125 (2005) (citing Lovett v. Hobbs, 89 Eng. Rep. 836 (1680)). The Gomez court relied on a line of cases originating with Lovett in order to hold that Disneyland was a common carrier.
^ See, e.g., Phillippe v. Shapell Industries, 43 Cal. 3d 1247 (1987) (citing original Statute of Frauds from England) and Meija v. Reed, 31 Cal. 4th 657 (2003) (citing Statute of 13 Elizabeth).
^ Burnham, 43-44.
^ Friedman, 69.

^ Elizabeth Gaspar Brown, "Frontier Justice: Wayne County 1796-1836," in Es

In other words, so much for this claim of Roman Law crapload.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

You claim it to be true but you cannot quote the exact law in the books? Your whole idea has been debunked in more than one way. Admitting that you were fooled by nonsense websites would be a good start.
Also who I am, where I am and what I know is irrelevant. Only thing relevant is that little law that doesn't seem to excist.

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

Am I to somehow believe that someone from Finland understands US law better than a US citizen?

Granted, the majority of the people in this country are idiots.
Just look at the people in this thread who willingly lap up Barry's propaganda campaign.

But VeritasAequitas is making a valid point about the law.

From my research I have yet to validate his citizenship argument, but I have yet to invalidate it.

And I would be hesitant to jump to an appeal to ridicule to try and make a point.

He is showing you something that can be easily understood simply by reading the actual laws on the books.

We are owned corporate chattel.
We are property of the USA inc.
After the war between the states they made the slaves think that they were free while making everybody slaves.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
He is showing you something that can be easily understood simply by reading the actual laws on the books.

Yes indeed! Precisely. I want to read that exact law from the books. As it is that probably wont happen. Since such a law doesn't excists. A.k.a. imaginary.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


This no longer applies.

We have common law on the books in a very few states, but we now fall under the jurisdiction of the USA inc.

That was the entire reason why the 14th Amendment was written.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
In other words, so much for this claim of Roman Law crapload.

Your appeal to ridicule is your only play.

You have no idea how law works. None.

I would be hesitant to argue this with me if I were you because you will lose and lose badly.

You don't understand this arena and you are learning on the fly. It is obvious.
This is something that I have spent years and years researching.

I have represented myself and I have represented numerous other people.
You do not have to be certified by the bar to act as legal counsel.

That is yet another myth.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Because everybody with a Birth Certificate in all capital letters is considered the same class of citizen as a 14th Amendment. If we are all 14th amendment citizens, then what were the founding fathers and first 20 presidents?

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
You have no idea how law works. None.

Well as it seems we have an expert on board. Can you quote that law? I do not want anyones opinion or articles about old laws. I want just that one law. Can you deliver?

reply to post by kyviecaldges


The 14th Amendment was written to protect the freed slaves and to give black people the right to vote. It has nothing to do with overriding English Common Law influence on the Constitution.


Edit: and determining who can and can't be eligible for president or who was born in Hawaii.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Do you realize what you just said? It gave them the RIGHT TO VOTE. Only citizens can vote; because the slaves were not included in the original Constitution, they could not be considered citizens able to vote. Thus they had to create a distinctly separate class of citizen so that they could.

The 14th Amendment made them citizens; the 15th Amendment extended it by giving them the right to vote.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling by the Supreme Court (1857) that had held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (for example, slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

The 14th Amendment was written to protect the freed slaves and to give black people the right to vote. It has nothing to do with overriding English Common Law influence on the Constitution.

WRONG.

The 14th Amendment was written to establish citizenship in a new corporate municipality establish in the District of Columbia in 1871.
This happened under the Organic Act of 1871.

And this applied to EVERYONE... not just the freed slaves.

The reformed US Govt., which was under military occupation, had already passed the Freedmans Act, the Enforcement Acts, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to deal with the freed slaves.

These acts gave the freed slaves "privileges" under the federal government, but they did not negate common law in the states.
This common law basis for interpretation of state constitutions would always override Federal law.

The only possible means by which the Federal government could fully bring the states under the control of the Federal Government was to ratify an amendment that made EVERYONE a citizen endowed with privileges and immunities under the jurisdiction thereof the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Read history.