Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 63
120
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Then tell me why all the Presidents have been related to the same King John Lackland that signed the Treaty of 1213. If any old citizen could be president, it would have happened. Instead we get already selected nominees. Did you pick Herman Cain? Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney?! These are corporate puppies; and only they have been President. You all need to dart asking yourselves how big coincidence can get.




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Then tell me why all the Presidents have been related to the same King John Lackland that signed the Treaty of 1213. If any old citizen could be president, it would have happened. Instead we get already selected nominees. Did you pick Herman Cain? Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney?! These are corporate puppies; and only they have been President. You all need to dart asking yourselves how big coincidence can get.


I'll quote the work of a 7th grader here:

Born in December 24, 1166, King John has indirectly supplied all US presidents (again, except Van Buren). King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, however, he never complied with its conditions and was known for his pettiness, spitefulness, and cruelty that helped give rise to the Robin Hood legends.

Beyond the work of now expert genealogy researcher BridgeAnne, dig just a little deeper and we find that Emperor Charlemagne (en.wikipedia.org...) is the root of just about all the leaders in Europe and the Middle East.

So we have a bunch of Presidents related to King John of Robin Hood fame, from 800 years ago. Go back far enough, you will find similar common ancestors among many groups. I'm not quite sure how you think this really applies to your argument, but I'll listen if you wish to explain.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 



These are corporate puppies; and only they have been President. You all need to dart asking yourselves how big coincidence can get.


To riff on this thought and on the idea of a 14th Amendment citizen NOT being a natural born citizen, every single president, save Barry, has been a white male.

I am willing to bet that these people did not use their birth certificates to validate their natural born citizen status.

They were able to claim this status because they were white males who were born on American soil to a mother and a father who were both State Citizens.

Like we were discussing, the definition of a natural born Citizen can only be established by the intent of the founding fathers and, regardless of right or wrong, when the founding fathers defined State Citizens, they meant white citizens.

Barry also wasn't sworn into office correctly.

John Roberts, the same supposedly "conservative" Chief Justice basically responsible for passing this health care bill that put us under the thumb of the Federal Government, did not administer the oath to office correctly.
I don't believe for a second that he just flubbed it.

These guys get to their place in life by NOT making mistakes.

The mass populace is so incredibly dumbed down that they chalk up mistakes by the Feds to stupidity.
Only because they themselves can identify.

These guys are far from stupid.



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

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 



These are corporate puppies; and only they have been President. You all need to dart asking yourselves how big coincidence can get.


To riff on this thought and on the idea of a 14th Amendment citizen NOT being a natural born citizen, every single president, save Barry, has been a white male.

I am willing to bet that these people did not use their birth certificates to validate their natural born citizen status.

They were able to claim this status because they were white males who were born on American soil to a mother and a father who were both State Citizens.

Like we were discussing, the definition of a natural born Citizen can only be established by the intent of the founding fathers and, regardless of right or wrong, when the founding fathers defined State Citizens, they meant white citizens.

Barry also wasn't sworn into office correctly.

John Roberts, the same supposedly "conservative" Chief Justice basically responsible for passing this health care bill that put us under the thumb of the Federal Government, did not administer the oath to office correctly.
I don't believe for a second that he just flubbed it.

These guys get to their place in life by NOT making mistakes.

The mass populace is so incredibly dumbed down that they chalk up mistakes by the Feds to stupidity.
Only because they themselves can identify.

These guys are far from stupid.


So now you're saying that the oath was invalid?

Here is the statement after the fact:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 21, 2009

The following is a statement from White House Counsel Greg Craig.
"We believe that the oath of office was administered effectively and that the President was sworn in appropriately yesterday. But the oath appears in the Constitution itself. And out of an abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath a second time."


Here is a place where it has been discussed:

www.scotusblog.com...

It would probably do you more good to stick with a single argument for Obama not being eligible.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by flyswatter
 


That comment was not directed at you.

It was meant for Veritas and it was a hypothetical comment that was not an argument.

If I am addressing you then you will know it.

It might help you to keep your replies relative to comments actually addressed to you or to the thread in general.


You made the comment, not me


I would be genuinely interested in seeing how the arguments about the capital letter birth certificates, 14th amendment citizens, and legality of Obama as president (as it relates to those matters) would all be interpreted and received by a lawyer. I cant really ask you to go argue your point in a court, but if you take this to a lawyer randomly chosen out of the phone book (one that is capable of dealing with this sort of thing, anyway), how do you think it would be handled?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Then tell me why all the Presidents have been related to the same King John Lackland that signed the Treaty of 1213.


Because he was a randy bugger and is probably related to 90% or more of people with any English blood in them!



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



I would be genuinely interested in seeing how the arguments about the capital letter birth certificates, 14th amendment citizens, and legality of Obama as president (as it relates to those matters) would all be interpreted and received by a lawyer.


Veritas and I are trying to understand why Barry refuses to validate his status as a natural born Citizen.
It is obvious that he has no intent to do this, so any curious person would want to know why.
These are hypothetical arguments that become more valid the more we research the issue.

My previous comment was based on a string of about 5 comments that I made yesterday discussing the original intent of the founding fathers when they wrote the actual Constitution.
Veritas and I have established that at least 2 distinct classes of citizen exist in the US with each having different rights.

Citizens with unalienable rights granted by God.

And citizens with inalienable rights granted by law.

14th Amendment citizens have inalienable rights granted by law.

This is at the heart of Veritas' argument.

And when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution a natural born Citizen was a State Citizen who could only be white.
This is not a pleasant historical truth, but it is the historical truth.
Sometimes history offends our modern sensibilities but that doesn't make it any more or any less true.

This idea is a thread within itself however, thus Veritas' thread discussing this very same issue.
The more I get into the idea; the more I realize exactly how much information exists.
But let me give you this teaser:

Let's say that you are charged under statute.
Let's take a speeding ticket.

Your court papers have a name that is written in all caps.
This is also on your drivers license.
Your name is written in all caps because you have assumed the contracted obligation of the artificial person recognized by your same birth name, but it is written in all caps.
Your driver's license is a contract.
However the real you, as in the natural person John Doe, is not the person on the contract.
You have assumed the identity of the corporation JOHN DOE.

The word assume is very important.
This is the legal definition of assume.


to take over the liability for a debt on a promissory note, which is often done by the buyer of real property which has a secured debt upon it.

link to source

The debt that you are taking over is the debt that you are pledged to, through your account with the social security administration, from the time that you are born.
This is why social security cards are issued at birth.
The projected value of this debt is leveraged on the open market through the sale of treasury securities.
They are auctioned off and the monies collected go to fund the government and pay interest to those who buy these securities.

Since you seem to doubt this, let's look at the US Government Handbook Style Manual issued by the US Government printing office.
This is the official word on the correct use of syntax, grammar, and capitalization when filing government documents.
This includes court cases.

This is a quote from a Pdf that I have already linked.

I will also provide a link to the newest 2008 edition handbook.


The United States Government Printing Office in their "Style Manual," March 1984
edition (the most recent edition published as of March 2000), provides comprehensive
grammar, style and usage for all government publications, including court and legal
writing.


Chapter 3, "Capitalization," at § 3.2, prescribes rules for proper names:
"Proper names are capitalized. [Examples given are] Rome, Brussels, John Macadam,
Macadam family, Italy, Anglo-Saxon."


At Chapter 17, "Courtwork, the rules of capitalization," as mentioned in Chapter 3, are
further reiterated:

"17.1. Courtwork differs in style from other work only as set forth in this section;
otherwise the style prescribed in the preceding sections will be followed."

link to source
(The courtroom section is now Chapter 20)

According to the governments own handbook, all court proceedings are to be written using proper syntax.
This means that a defendant's name is written as John Doe.

Not JOHN DOE.

Either lawyers, judges and court clerks are breaking their own rules by doing all caps.
(look at your drivers license... a government document)
Or some other mechanism is at work.

I will let you ruminate on this for a minute.

I told you that this is much more involved than... just show me the law.
edit on 23/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Just to reiterate...

If you go to the website for the government manual listing the use of capitalization and download the pdf for the section on capitalization, in section 3-11 it states that this is the correct format for writing the title to a legal case.


British Consul v. The Mermaid (title of legal case)

link to source

Notice the mix of capitals and lower case lettering.

Now go to this link and look at the court filing for the New Jersey case questioning Obama's eligibility.

This is how the title of the legal case is written.

NICHOLAS E. PURPURA and THEODORE T. MORAN vs. BARACK OBAMA

link to source

This directly violates the government's own rules according to their style book.

EDIT TO ADD:
My reason for showing you this is because Chapter 20 is vague and doesn't represent the quote from Chapter 17 in the 1984 edition.
I am looking for the 1984 edition online, but it is hiding from me.

However... this clearly shows you that the government has a designated style and they are not adhering to it.

WHY????

I will answer why in successive posts, but this is a very complicated issue.
edit on 23/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Veritas and I are trying to understand why Barry refuses to validate his status as a natural born Citizen.


Oh dear, yet another lie from you - he has not refused any such silly claim, in fact he had done more than any previous POTUS - but you ignore that fact for some reason!


Veritas and I have established that at least 2 distinct classes of citizen exist in the US with each having different rights.


Actually, you have not established any such thing at all.


Your court papers have a name that is written in all caps.
This is also on your drivers license.


and again you are wrong, my name on my drivers license is not in all caps....
edit on 23-7-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Then can you explain the examples that I have listed?

I can't debate your license because well... It's yours.
And I don't see you posting it online.

But what I can do is show you court filings that contradict the style guidelines as issued by the US government.

Look man.
You can mock or ridicule me, but I am showing you something that I am very interested to see you or anyone else try to debunk.
I have much much more.
But let's just stick with this for now.

You telling me that your license is not in all caps means nothing to me.

Deal with my links.
Deal with my evidence.
edit on 23/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
But what I can do is show you court filings that contradict the style guidelines as issued by the US government.


Again you poor English comprehension is showing - do you even know what a 'guideline" actually is?


but I am showing you something that I am very interested to see you or anyone else try to debunk.


It has been debunked here - but like all birthers you refuse to accept reality!



Deal with my evidence.


what evidence?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by spoor
 

Deal with my evidence.


your "links" and "evidence" have been shot to pieces in court case after court case where poor suckers who have bought into this nonsense have tried it on.

Deal with it yourself.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


I have shown you the US Government Printing office Style Manual that provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government publications, including court and legal writing.

Everything in law is absolutely precise.

I don't know if any of you have ever written and filed a motion in a court of law, but I have.

Any attorney will tell you that if you don't follow proper format protocol, then your motion or case will be tossed.
An attorney can literally lose a case because they did not cross t's or dot i's.

The hand book that I have linked contains comprehensive guidelines for grammar and syntax in all government documents.
This includes court and legal writing.

I have provided a link.
This is not up for debate.
If you have a problem then take it up with your congressman.

I then provided you with a quote from the manual that shows the proper format for writing the title to a court case.
The title must be written with a mix of capitals and lower case.

I then provided you with a pdf link to a court filing in the PURPURA and MORAN vs. OBAMA case.

Did you notice the ALL CAPS?

All caps usage that violates the guidelines set forth by the government.

Like all things law, this is done for a reason.

But yet YOU are completely unable to refute this evidence.
The best that you can do is this-

Again you poor English comprehension is showing - do you even know what a 'guideline" actually is?


Yes I do. As a matter of fact I listed the government style manual that sets forth these guidelines.
And you conveniently ignore it.
Would you please address the argument?


It has been debunked here - but like all birthers you refuse to accept reality!


WRONG.

As usual you return to the same tired, worn out talking points while completely ignoring my post.


what evidence?


Desperation. Total and complete desperation.
I am surprised that you are even commenting.
I notice your buddies don't have much to say.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by spoor
 

Deal with my evidence.


your "links" and "evidence" have been shot to pieces in court case after court case where poor suckers who have bought into this nonsense have tried it on.

Deal with it yourself.


Actually no.

You are ignoring the US Government Printing Office Style Manual information.

This is really funny to watch.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I starred and flagged this thread just now after I saw your dilution tactics.
Bye...



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


your "links" and "evidence" have been shot to pieces in court case after court case where poor suckers who have bought into this nonsense have tried it on.


Actually no.


actually yes.

The printing office does not make or enfiorce laws.

If you are so sure of yourself then I look forward to hearing about your successes in court - where's that information and evidence??



I have shown you the US Government Printing office Style Manual that provides comprehensive grammar, style and usage for all government publications, including court and legal writing.

Everything in law is absolutely precise.


And yet you think that a grammer, style and useage guide is actually the law??
edit on 23-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


You mean your signature isn't.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


The priniting office does not make or enfiorce laws.

If you are so sure of yourself then I look forward to hearing about your successes in court - where's that information and evidence??


No they don't make or enforce laws, but what they do is print the style manual that contains guidelines for all court and legal matters.

But yet YOU will no address this.

Why is that?
Could it be that all this time you have been screaming for evidence.
Evidence that Veritas has been willingly providing you.
And now you are faced with point blank, undeniable in your face evidence and this is all you got.

Where are your buddies?

All I hear are crickets.
edit on 23/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I starred and flagged this thread just now after I saw your dilution tactics.
Bye...


Thank you for seeing through the smoke and mirrors.






top topics



 
120
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join