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

page: 61
120
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


See?

Birthers claim that too.

Everywhere else a copy is all you need. In fact, all you need is a bc card.

He released it twice, you birthers just can't accept it.

Whine some more.




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


And yet you cant show any examples, no matter how many dozens of times you're challenged too.

Go figure.


Give me about an hour, maybe two, and I will have a full explanation for you on the legal fiction ALL CAPS name.

Mind you, an answer that Veritas has already provided for you about a bajillion bo-billion different ways.


I just found the information that, without a doubt, proves this to be the case.

But similar to the argument concerning 14th amendment citizenship and Obama not being accepted as a natural born citizen, this truth is found in a combination of contract law.
Relax a little minute and you will have your answer.


I really must add though that it seems as if we have to provide you with evidence that goes far beyond court of law valid, however, somehow when Hawaiian officials tell you something you accept it with absolutely no research into the truth.
Unquestionably.

You have a bizarre standard for validity.
You pay attention to who tells it to you, and you don't listen to what is actually being sad.

This is why producers have pretty blonde women anchor the news.
edit on 23/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 



Originally posted by kyviecaldges
You deathers seem especially adept at employing logical fallacies to suit your needs.


Hey! We're not "deathers". First there were the birthers - we came after. We are the After-birthers! And don't you forget it!




But yet he has still not proven his natural born citizenship.


How do you know this? How do you know that he wasn't vetted and provided his official birth certificate to the FEC when he decided to run in 2007?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



How do you know this? How do you know that he wasn't vetted and provided his official birth certificate to the FEC when he decided to run in 2007?


Because if he had evidence that he was an actual natural born citizen then this evidence would be admitted into a court of law as prima facie evidence.

I care not what the FEC states.
This is no different than Hawaiian officials stating that he is legit.
I have made it abundantly clear that politicians lie.
Government employees lie.
The only possible means by which this whole kit and kaboodle can be laid to rest is by a court of law finding him to be a natural born citizen.
This would require evidence.
Either an official testifying UNDER OATH, or preferably...

And official copy of his long form BC

I have been over this so many different times that I would hope that you deathers would now realize my stance.

If you would pardon me I have some light reading to do.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Except the people being critical of the whole "freeman" movement don't even know the real reason it gets crushed in a court of law. It's not because it's true, it's because the people who are trying to act as if they know the law by spending 5 minutes reading an article on it, aren't aware of all the bases. They go into court and commit the mistakes that are what kills their trial. If they knew every single bit of evidence they needed, and took the necessary steps before hand, Reserving all rights under UCC 1-308 and other measures. If they had checked every possible step and were aware of the law like every citizen should be, they'd be able to get away with it. Which is why the percentage of successful cases is lower than the number of failed. However don't misconstrue this to believe that nobody has ever won.

There are quite a few law-aware citizens that have gotten themselves out of trouble by knowing the full extent of the law.


Are you referring to (at least in part) the UCC-1 statement?

A UCC-1 financing statement is simply a form for small businesses when they need to establish security loans. Although one could possibly establish themselves as a creditor, putting ones name in capitol letters has absolutely no effect on ones status or sovereignty and could very well get you in serious trouble with the courts.

Also, Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 176, Subchapter A - a person includes a natural person (including an individual indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a state or local government or indian tribe. This explains that a differentiation between a natural person and a legal person are false.

Your assertion that the US is essentially a bankrupt corporation is also false. It has a corporation, but is not a corporation in and of itself. There is a big difference.

I would be interested in seeing any sort of case where your assertions and of this law were actually used successfully in winning. You say it has been done, and I can't completely dismiss that without at least asking you to see the results first.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


When you scan a document on paper such as a Birth Certificate into your computer and upload it into Adobe it should all be in one layer. However with Obama's it was broken into multiple layers, some suggesting that different bits were copied and pasted onto the template. Obama's staff countered saying it was due to OCR recognition, however there are also tests that can determine if such a thing happened, and they as well turned up false.

A real Birth Certificate and not a COPY are on bank note paper with seals and etc. His had neither.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   


There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore I, as director of health for the state of Hawai'i, along with the registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the state of Hawai'i.


Hawai'i Department of Health's director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino:




You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Sen. McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it's one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawai'i. And that's just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it's, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. ... It's been established. He was born here.


Governor Lingle, May 2010




"It’s kind of ludicrous at this point," Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawai'i's Department of Health, said in a rare telephone interview with NBC. No matter what state officials release on the issue, the "birthers" are going to question it, said Fukino. "They’re going to question the ink on which it was written or say it was fabricated," said Fukino. "The whole thing is silly."


Dr. Fukimo, April 2011




Joshua Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general's office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of "vital records," including an original "record of live birth" — even to the individual whose birth it records. "It's a Department of Health record and it can't be released to anybody," he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said. But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated "certification of live birth" form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.[4]


Joshua Wisch, spokesman for the Hawai'i Attorney General's Office, as reported by NBC in April of 2011:




In November 2008, The Advertiser reported that the first published mention of the future president appeared in a Sunday Advertiser birth announcement that ran on Aug. 13, 1961... The identical announcement ran the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Birthers wave off those birth announcements, saying that Obama family members 48 years ago could have phoned in false information to both newspapers. Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, [Health Department spokeswoman Janice] Okubo said.[7]


Honolul Advertiser

wiki.birtherdebunkers.net...



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
FURTHERMORE:


Hawaii Law states:

§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

(1) The registrant;

(2) The spouse of the registrant;

(3) A parent of the registrant;

(4) A descendant of the registrant;

(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;

(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;

(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;

(8) A personal representative of the registrant's estate;

(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;

(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child's natural or legal parents;

(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;

(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and

(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.

(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.

(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.

(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.

(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:

(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;

(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities;

(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency's or organization's activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;

(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or

(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]


www.capitol.hawaii.gov...



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


When you scan a document on paper such as a Birth Certificate into your computer and upload it into Adobe it should all be in one layer. However with Obama's it was broken into multiple layers, some suggesting that different bits were copied and pasted onto the template. Obama's staff countered saying it was due to OCR recognition, however there are also tests that can determine if such a thing happened, and they as well turned up false.


"Obama's staff" are not the only ones saying that you are wrong Natinal Review Online analysis of "layers"


UPDATE: I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.


Fogbow - layers and illustrations

And many others here


A real Birth Certificate and not a COPY are on bank note paper with seals and etc. His had neither.


Since you have not actually held the original you do not actually know this - you are just making it up. And in fact many birthers argues about eth "embossing" actually being "debossing" - so apparently you lot can't even agree on that among yourselves!

The Hawaii Dept of Health has held the original, and says you are wrong.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


UCC-1 is indeed for financing, and when used correctly can place you as the creditor apposed to the debtor.

en.wikipedia.org...



Notice how it is an instrument of debt? Nowhere on this bill does it say it can be used to accumulate wealth. If you are not a creditor, you are by default a debtor. There is no gray zone.
edit on 23-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 



How do you know this? How do you know that he wasn't vetted and provided his official birth certificate to the FEC when he decided to run in 2007?


Because if he had evidence that he was an actual natural born citizen then this evidence would be admitted into a court of law as prima facie evidence.


Only if there was a relevant court case that required it.

Birthers have not yet managed to arrange for one of those.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Why do you continue to post articles from the government investigating itself? It means nothing. I could be accused of Murder, but if I investigate myself even though I know I did it, and declare myself innocent, does that mean I am?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Your very own Hawaiian law states this...


(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings.


This was requested in New Jersey, but the judge did not find it necessary.
This was because Barry's own lawyer argued that New Jersey law does not state that natural born citizenship is a requirement to be on the ballot.

Really. How many times now have I told this to you?
edit on 23/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Because unlike you I have an open mind that works both ways. I'm also a pretty intelligent person who knows a lot about bullchit and can often spot it a mile off.

All I want is real evidence. REAL EVIDENCE, not just claims and argumentation from a bunch of trolls.

And unlike you I am not going to go to extraordinary dirty and dishonest tricks to define it and get it.

The truth is the truth.

And you don't have it.

I know it means nothing to you, just as your claims mean nothing to me.

Why do you persist in pushing your birther claims that have no proof and mean nothing to me?

It makes me wonder who you're really working for.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


How many times does it have to be repeated to you that Hawaii will only release a record if a person has a vital interest as prescribed by law. Hawaii values privacy.

And Hawaii must have felt that they weren't a vital interest.

So no, they don't have to release it.

That is a lie to claim that they do absolutely have to release it to anybody who claims it.

So why doesn't Hawaii have any right to refuse anybody as you claim?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Troll harder. Actually try to rebut my 'claims' other than just making outlandish ones of your own.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
 


UCC-1 is indeed for financing, and when used correctly can place you as the creditor apposed to the debtor.

en.wikipedia.org...



Notice how it is an instrument of debt? Nowhere on this bill does it say it can be used to accumulate wealth. If you are not a creditor, you are by default a debtor. There is no gray zone.
edit on 23-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)


Wealth for one is different from wealth of another, its a matter of perspective. But this little nitpick doesnt really do either of us any good, and is an argument for another time and another thread.

The point of that was noting that this whole argument is seen as a joke, based on the Freeman ideology. Some of the arguments that come from the Freeman way of thinking may have some validity, I cant discount that. But this is not one of them.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


You're the troll here. Every time somebody rebukes you and proves you wrong you respond aggressively without any respect for them.

Edit:

And i have to congratulate you. You and your other friend have dominated this discussion, derailing the topic of this thread, for almost forty pages, and scaring off the rest of the birthers who haven't had anything to say since you two've been dominating the thread.

CONGRATULATIONS!

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



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


The Constitution requires all presidents to be a natural born citizen. Obama released the copy of his onto his website. It was later declared the copy was a forgery. So therefore we the people have a vested interest in seeing that birth certificate so that we can declare once and for all whether it be legitimate or forgery.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


So no, they don't have to release it.

That is a lie to claim that they do absolutely have to release it to anybody who claims it.

So why doesn't Hawaii have any right to refuse anybody as you claim?


I have never claimed that they had to release it.

Are you really unable to understand what I am saying?
Seriously.
What can I do to help you understand this.

A lawyer requested it and a judge denied the request, not because Barry is a natural born citizen, but because his lawyer argued a silly technicality.
Although New Jersey law does not have a natural born citizen requirement...
THE US CONSTITUTION DOES HAVE THIS REQUIREMENT.

Funny how the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land...

Unless of course it helps Barry's case for eligibility if New Jersey law trumps constitutional law for candidates decided upon by electors.
edit on 23/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
120
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join