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.

 

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

page: 58
120
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Please do hurry.
I have a life outside of ATS and I have to leave to live my life very soon.

So please post these questions that I have not answered.

But do make them specific to either mine or Veritas' argument.

I do not want to cover ground that he has already covered.




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
You show me a Birth Certificate from 1882 after I explicitly asked for one after 1933.


Oh dear, you did not. You asked for "Then show me a certified Birth Certificate that doesn't spell the persons name in all capital letters..You can't. " posted on 22-7-2012 @ 02:39 PM

So again you have been caught making things up.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


These are the questions I asked. I was not trolling, I was asking them in good faith.

WHAT WILL YOU ACCEPT AS EVIDENCE?

And why do you guys get to determine what is and isn't evidence? And absolutely nobody else does?

Why are you guys the authority on this and absolutely nobody else is?

Are you trying to say that the only evidence you'll accept is something you can hold in your hands? That Obama has to subpoena Hawaii, get his bc released, take it your house and let you hold it in your hands?

And if he, by some miracle, actually does that and it states that he was born in Hawaii, will you let it go and finally put an end to the issue?

You guys keep on claiming that the things Obama has done and the statements of the Hawaii Officials are not evidence. Yet, you do not define exactly what evidence is or exactly what evidence you will accept to put the issue to rest.

SO WHAT EVIDENCE WILL IT TAKE TO SHOW YOU OBAMA WAS NOT BORN IN KENYA?
edit on 23-7-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
 


This is entirely irrelevant...Capitis deminutio falls under property, contracts, and tort of common law. There are no statues to 'declare law' in common law; so how do you expect me to provide you one? Statues fall under the jurisdiction of statutory law.


Here is a link for you:
rationalwiki.org...

I find it funny how this is recognized in law and by the FBI, but only as a scam



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Go back further than that. I'm quite vivid in memory of saying that it was due to the takeover of the banking industry and afterwards they required the States to pledge their citizens as collateral against the national debt; where do you think they got the term collateral damage?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


If you read the Debunking point; it is based not on a debunking of the laws or procedures but upon proving you are who the strawman is, based on 'if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck.'

The IRS? Lol it's not like they don't lie on every single piece of mail that gets sent out declaring it an agency of the Department of the Treasury. Wanna get into this one? I double dare you to find Internal Revenue Service on either one of these documents, listed as an agency of the Treasury.

uscode.house.gov...

uscode.house.gov...

Nor is the Federal Reserve listed here as a government owned corporation...
edit on 23-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Both I and Veritas have answered these questions a stupid amount of times, but I will do so ONE MORE TIME.


SO WHAT EVIDENCE WILL IT TAKE TO SHOW YOU OBAMA WAS NOT BORN IN KENYA?


I never once said that he was born in Kenya.

This is yet another attempt to mischaracterize my arguments.

As a matter of fact, neither Veritas NOR I have stated that he was born in Kenya.

This is an attempt to compartmentalize our arguments in order to make them more easily invalidated.


WHAT WILL YOU ACCEPT AS EVIDENCE?


I accept evidence as that which is formally acceptable in a court of law.
This is the only valid evidence that anyone can consider truly binding because if someone is lying or the evidence is forged then the act of engaging in either is punishable by law.

You seem to think that the word of an official is a-okay.

Whereas both I and Veritas believe that officials lie.

All the time.

We have listed a ba-jillion and one instances of officials lying.
And to add to that, the pentagon has recently openly embraced propaganda as an acceptable means of communication.
Courts have ruled that news agencies have no constitutional obligation to tell the truth.

I do have a standard for valid evidence and it is that which will be accepted into a court of law.
Barry could have taken care of this in New Jersey, but he chose to argue a technicality.
He argued that the internet copy that HE HAS USED TO CONVINCE PEOPLE OF HIS LEGITIMACY was INVALID EVIDENCE IN A COURT OF LAW.

He, for some odd reason, will not go this route.
It is the easiest route.
A certified copy of his long form BC would be called prima facie evidence.
Prima facie evidence is used to dismiss a lawsuit in summary judgement.

This has never once happened.

You obviously believe politicians never lie and the government has your best interests in mind.

I do not.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


I agree. The sarcasm against us is disturbing. "Do you want to hold it in your hands? Have him show up at your house?", etc is just plain stupid. No, I want him to quit hiding behind lawyers and just release the real deal long form birth certificate OR have it admitted into court as said prima facie evidence. This would without a doubt be so "in your face", that "Birthers" would not be able to argue it any longer.

Why do you think it is that he would have himself placed on a New Jersey ballot where his own lawyer said in court that Mickey Mouse could be on the ballot. Hell why don't we just let every illegal wanna be president register in New Jersey, and request Connecticut SSN's to prevent people from asking for them either, huh?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


If somebody accused me of being a homosexual; I'd release tapes of me sleeping with their wife. Not spend outrageous sums of money in court in an attempt to prove them wrong. Besides; Who needs privacy if you aren't doing anything wrong?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Because I'm sick and tired of posting ->

www.scribd.com...

wiki.answers.com... d_blood_living_soul




Dr. Pepper Co. v. Crow, 621 S.W.2d 464,465 (Tex App.-Waco 1981, no writ). "Plaintiff plead defendant was a corporation. Defendant did not deny by verified pleading pursuant to [TRCP] 52 and 93 ... that it was not a corporation; thus, such fact was established."

edit on 23-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   


I never once said that he was born in Kenya.


But that is exactly what you are arguing. Because you are arguing that obama can not be eligible to be President.

Otherwise, any of your claims is irrelevant.




his is yet another attempt to mischaracterize my arguments. As a matter of fact, neither Veritas NOR I have stated that he was born in Kenya. This is an attempt to compartmentalize our arguments in order to make them more easily invalidated.


But you arguing that he can not be eligible for the presidency. That argument stems from the claim that he was born in Kenya.




I accept evidence as that which is formally acceptable in a court of law.


The claims of the Hawaii official would be enough proof in a court of law.




Whereas both I and Veritas believe that officials lie. All the time.


Of course many officials lie, but you are claiming that all officials do is lie, which is a HUGE generalization.




He, for some odd reason, will not go this route.



Because he doesn't have to. It is you people who are claiming that he has to prove himself to you when the rest of the Nation is satisfied. There is nothing in law that states he has to go this route at all. Not to mention that he is an American citizen, same as you, and does have a right to privacy, same as you. Just because he becomes President does not mean that he gives this right up.




You obviously believe politicians never lie and the government has your best interests in mind. I do not.


Actually now you are mischaracterizing me. Of course I believe that politicians lie, but I also give some the benefit of the doubt.

And as far as prima facie evidence is concerned, he doesn't have to present it. Because he has not made any claims.

In fact, according to the wiki:

In most legal proceedings, one party has a burden of proof, which requires it to present prima facie evidence for all of the essential facts in its case. If they cannot, its claim may be dismissed without any need for a response by other parties. A prima facie case might not stand or fall on its own; if an opposing party introduces other evidence or asserts an affirmative defense it can only be reconciled with a full trial. Sometimes the introduction of prima facie evidence is informally called making a case or building a case.

And you do not have the evidence to support your claims.

The onus is on you to prove that obama is not eligible to be President, and the only way to do that is to have evidence.

All you've done is misconstrue the laws to support your erroneous definitions, so of course your claims would be thrown out in court.


That's the way the courts work, is the onus is only on one party, and not the defense, it is on the offense?

So what do you do?

You try to redefine the existing laws in a claim that he can not be President.

You are the ones with the claims, the onus is on you.

There's an old saying, don't bullchit a bullchitter.

The only way you can provide any evidence is to provide witness and video evidence that he was born in Kenya and can not be eligible to be president. Anything else will not work in a court of law. And then you have to have probable cause that he has committed a crime of fraud to take it to a court of law.

The only way to claim that Obama is not eligible is to claim that he was not born in America. That's it. Nothing else. Anything else is sophistry.

Which you have none.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Unplug your keyboard and mouse right now.....We are not arguing that Obama was born in Kenya, nor have we ever been. That is a distraction. Our conversation has nothing to do with being born in Kenya. It is on the basis of having a birth certificate spelled in all capital letters denotes you as a slave or property; if he has a true birth certificate in all capital letters; he can not legally be president because slaves can not be President. No matter what skin color. So before you accuse me of being racist or prejudice, remember that my people (The Irish) were enslaved LONG ago.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


You are throwing Kyvie and I in with an entirely separate group of argument. This argument about his eligibility does NOT stem from him being born in Kenya. It stems from the implications of an all upper case birth certificate.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


It's not sarcasm. It is what you are implying. You're just deflecting because you know you are wrong and are just trolling.

He's already released his bc twice and it's been claimed as fake. What makes you think it will be any different if he takes this route?

And he doesn't have to, because he has not committed a crime or a fraud and has every right to privacy. It's called innocent until proven guilty, and you've declared him guilty not matter what he does. So of course he's going to fight you guys. He has every right to. Why can't you understand this?

It is up to you to prove he has, and you have not provided any proof. None, zero!

Personally I'd like to see him start suing people for libel and slander.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   


Friday August 06, 2004 TITLE I ADMINISTRATION PART I OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE CHAPTER 70 CORPORATIONS SUBCHAPTER C ENTITY NAMES Rule Section-79.32 Characters of Print Acceptable in Names (a) Entity names may consist of letters of the Roman alphabet, Arabic numerals, and certain symbols capable of being reproduced on a standard English language typewriter, or combination thereof. (b) Only upper case or capital letters, with no distinction as to type face or font, will be recognized, (c) The symbols recognized as part of a name may include ! " $ % ( ) * ? # = @ [ ] / + & and -. Source Note: The provisions of this Section-79.31 adopted to be effective January 1, 1976; amended to be effective September l5 1981, 6 TexReg 3249; amended to be effective January 2, 1992, 16 TexReft 7469. Black's 4th: Entity. A real being; existence. Department of Banking v. Hedges, 136 Neb. 382. 286 N.W. 277, 281





TITLE 16 CHAPTER 44A Sec. 2432 Sec. 2432. - Definitions (10) Vessel of the United States --- The term ''vessel of the United States'' means - (A) a vessel documented under chapter 121 of title 46 or a vessel numbered as provided in chapter 123 of that title; (B) a vessel owned in whole or in part by - (i) the United States or a territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States; (ii) a State or political subdivision thereof; (iii) a citizen or national of the United States; or (iv) a corporation created under the laws of the United States or any State, the District of Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth, or possession of the United States;


Now keep arguing that all capital letters means nothing

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 23-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


No no, I have declared him guilty because in my eyes he has not proven himself innocent. However I am not the only one he must do so to, and neither are you. Your acceptance is meaningless. My argument has nothing to do with Kenya, unless you can learn to catch up and participate in this discussion with substance, I have nothing further to dispute with you.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Which is a bunch of bs.

Pure and simple.

If that's true then you need to release your BC to prove that you're not a slave.

Which means you effectively derailed this thread because this thread was not about that AT ALL. It was about Arpaio's claims of Obama's bc being fraudulent, and he wasn't even arguing you crapload at all.

And Obama can't be a slave anyway, BECAUSE SLAVERY IS ILLEGAL IN AMERICA.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


You have the entire argument backwards. By releasing my birth certificate; it proves that I am a slave. Unlike you all, I am quite aware of this fact.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


What kind of person with God given rights needs to be given the right of privacy, the right to marriage, the right to own property, or the right to protect himself from a man made government, unless their rights are derived from said government and not their creator? Unless the Government is their creator....



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Wrong; my argument is on topic, via the grounds that the recent he released a fraudulent birth certificate, was not because he was born in Kenya, but by retaining a Birth Certificate in all capital letters, prevents him from eligibility. Why is it that every single president has been related to each other? Why is it never a common person like me or you? Why are we subject to the rule of the bankers, and politicians? Because we are slaves to debt.



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join