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

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


What else is a slave but property? You have a Birth Certificate written and printed on Bank Bond/Notes, with a name in all capital letters. You know what else they spell in all capital letters?




The title to your car, and your car is property.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


If you had read the bold and underline points you would have seen that matters involving property, contracts, and etc are included in both.

Thus capitis diminutio maxima, referring to property such as slaves, would be incorporated as well.. I have shown you the law, as it applies to us..Just keep screaming till your blue in the face I haven't..I could care less.

You've also completely ignored the post that pointed out that capitalization didn't even excist in ancient rome. So tell me again how roman law has "capital letters" system when they don't have the same system in writing?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


You've been proven wrong so many times why should i take you seriously?

Everytime i check your "facts", your facts are wrong.

All you're doing is just trying to twist everything into your bs Obama can't be President because he's a Kenyan junk.

reply to post by PsykoOps


However it did in England when they adopted it

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


And all you are doing is repeating the same rhetoric I have already denounced. I am not saying that Obama is Kenyan. Yes he can be born in the United States; but that doesn't mean he would have gotten a birth certificate. Why can't you get that in your head?

reply to post by Milkflavour


It's true that I have a personal agenda: FREEDOM! I want my children and their children, ad infinitum, to live in a land where they have real choices in those who will lead them. Currently, OUR nation (since you redily admit this is none of your business), and its government, have been infiltrated with scoundrels who are selling our future to line their own pockets, and turn us into a nation of slaves. I think you should mind your own business, friend!

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


en.wikipedia.org...

Though the scope of the term differs amongst various countries, some examples of civil liberties include the freedom from slavery and forced labor, freedom from torture and death, the right to liberty and security, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to due process, the right to a fair trial, the right to own property, the right to defend one's self, the right to bodily integrity, and the right to keep and bear arms.

Only somebody who was considered a slave would need to be 'given' freedom from torture and death, or the right to privacy, or the right to own property.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Why can't you get it through your head that that is wrong? A bc is not a requirement for eligibility for president, nor does it need to be in all caps.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Here is the entire 200,000+ pages of United States Code courtesy of the Cornell Legal Information Institute. If this law actually exists in the US it should be somewhere in those pages. Please find it for us and provide the code for it as well as a direct quote. Until you can do this I think this thread should move back on topic.

United States Code

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Then show me a certified Birth Certificate that doesn't spell the persons name in all capital letters..You can't.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

ROMAN LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CONSTITUTION AND HAS NO INFLUENCE ON THE CONSTITUTION.

The Constituion is influenced by ENGLISH COMMON LAW.

God... I was soooooooo hoping that someone would post those quotes about the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
You obviously didn't read all of it, nor did you attempt to understand exactly why it was written, but hey...

Your mistake.

THANK YOU for posting the very thing that will prove you wrong.

Since you seem to understand that they US Constitution was originally intended to be under common law jurisdiction, what exactly changed this in the Tompkins v. Erie Railroad SCOTUS decision?

a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that federal courts did not have the judicial power to create general federal common law when hearing state law claims under diversity jurisdiction.

Go ahead.
I am waiting for you to take the rope around your neck and tighten it.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

Here is the entire 200,000+ pages of United States Code courtesy of the Cornell Legal Information Institute. If this law actually exists in the US it should be somewhere in those pages. Please find it for us and provide the code for it as well as a direct quote. Until you can do this I think this thread should move back on topic.

United States Code

edit on 7/22/2012 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)

It exists, but I would rather guide you folks with a leash until you discover the truth.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


I don't have to. The Constitution is taken as the Supreme Law of the Land and operates under Common Law. Common Law and Civil Law share the same provisions of the law regarding property, contracts, and tort. Those are the facts. Capitis diminutio maxima was Roman law in regards to slaves, and slaves are property, and this would be included in the common law provisions.

Your birth certificate is a contract, signed by your parents, detailing ownership of you and is filed away at the Bureau of Vital Statistics under the Department of Commerce. They hold your Birth Certificate indicating that they own possession of what it details; you.

was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that federal courts did not have the judicial power to create general federal common law when hearing state law claims under diversity jurisdiction. In reaching this holding, the Court overturned almost a century of federal civil procedure case law, and established the foundation of what remains the modern law of diversity jurisdiction as it applies to United States federal courts.

In other words, the case has nothing to do with overriding the influence of English Common law.

As usual, another twist of the facts by birthers.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Reported for calling people who don't agree with you derogatory names like "birthers" because I feel like it is directly damaging to my personal image.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Like I said, be respectful of birthers and they'll attack you and use any dirty trick to shut you up when you've proven them wrong.

You're the one who's been attacking me every time I prove you wrong.

And you know what, I haven't reported you for anything.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone

In other words, the case has nothing to do with overriding the influence of English Common law.

As usual, another twist of the facts by birthers.

You really should stop while your ahead.

The case established that the one maxim inherent in Common Law no longer applied.... stare decisis.

Without stare decisis there is not influence of English Common Law.

Why would the court do this?

Did you read the dissenting decisions?

I can link you to the actual court filing, but I don't understand why you don't find it yourself.

In the dissenting opinion, it was stated that the court was engaging in judicial activism in overturning a century of common law precedent.

Why was this said?

I could tell you the answer, but it is much more fun watching you learn.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by VeritasAequitas

 

Like I said, be respectful of birthers and they'll attack you and use any dirty trick to shut you up when you've proven them wrong.

You're the one who's been attacking me every time I prove you wrong.

And you know what, I haven't reported you for anything.

All diversion.

If you want to understand this then you have to do some work.

I can't just lay it out for you, Veritas has pretty much told you what is up minus a very few key issues, but you won't believe it if you don't have to work for it.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


No, it did not.

The Supreme Court had held that the federal courts need not also apply the court-made common law of the states.

Which is NOT the same thing as overturning all influences of the English Common Law across the entire nation.

It was an attempt to promote uniformity in the law.