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

page: 65
120
<< 62  63  64    66 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 




The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Care to eat your words now?




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Actually I have spoken to a lawyer; and a very good one I might add.


Ok. Now, if you'd like to provide the information on this lawyer, and a brief overview of what his determinations have been, I'm sure we'd all like to see it.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 



Of course we cant prove it. But then again, we dont have to, as those in Hawaii have already confirmed he was born there.

Now, if you wish to debate that, go right ahead. You can say you dont trust them, or that you think they are all in on this grand conspiracy - thats fine.

Or, if you still want to run with the whole 14th amendment and all caps argument, thats also fine. As I said, lets take this to a practicing attorney and see what he thinks he (or another lawyer) could do with it in court.


When you gonna take on the information that I presented proving that the ALL CAPS name is used to denote an artificial person in a court of law?

You screamed about wanting to see it.
Despite the fact that Veritas gave you evidence upon evidence.

And now you just want to return to the whole Hawaiian officials nonsense?

edit on 24/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Beers
 


Why do you think they freak out when people use midwives for childbirth? No birth certificate.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Still being discussed at this time; but will let you know when we are done. At this point and time I am busy collecting all the data that I can.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by spoor
 




The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Care to eat your words now?


No, again your English comprehension skills are lacking , you missed this bit

against unreasonable searches


The searches that they do are not unreasonable!



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Hey brother I gotta roll to bed and get sleep like a human.

This has been a great learning experience.

See ya tomorrow. Have fun dealing with the peanut gallery.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Did you miss the part about probable cause? "We have probable cause to search your vehicle."

/facepalm

You can't argue with me about this. My lawyer confirmed it for me and he trumps any kind of semantics arguing you can think of.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Don't know who 'they' is and I think midwifes are ... well midwifes, not really used anymore



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


I'm going to sleep too xD I haven't the strength to argue with them alone. They act like you acquiesce when 5 of them are posting arguments at once.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


This applies ANY time they invoke probable cause.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by flyswatter
 



Of course we cant prove it. But then again, we dont have to, as those in Hawaii have already confirmed he was born there.

Now, if you wish to debate that, go right ahead. You can say you dont trust them, or that you think they are all in on this grand conspiracy - thats fine.

Or, if you still want to run with the whole 14th amendment and all caps argument, thats also fine. As I said, lets take this to a practicing attorney and see what he thinks he (or another lawyer) could do with it in court.


When you gonna take on the information that I presented proving that the ALL CAPS name is used to denote an artificial person in a court of law?

You screamed about wanting to see it.
Despite the fact that Veritas gave you evidence upon evidence.

And now you just want to return to the whole Hawaiian officials nonsense?

You seem to be suffering from the mental distress encountered after being shown that the beliefs that you have are in no way grounded in reality.

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously

link to source


You brought up the certification of a BC, and I told you who did it. If you dont care for the responses that you may get, dont bring up the subject.

All caps is not used to denote an artificial person in a court of law. I explained several pages ago that there is no legal distinction between a real and artificial person, and I provided the text the showed what a person is. You dont have to believe the definition, you dont have to agree with it, you dont have to like it, but what I provided was factual information, not an interpretation or supposition.

Take care with slinging insults at people, ok? You've had enough posts tagged off topic already, and we have all been warned off of personal attacks by mods.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Appears the questions got too hard.....



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Still being discussed at this time; but will let you know when we are done. At this point and time I am busy collecting all the data that I can.


Good, discuss away. But me thinks that a lawyer well versed in constitutional law would not need much time to come up with a simple opinion/advisement about this whole issue
But hey, I'm no lawyer, just a government contracted lackey.

If things go as you seem to wish, I'm sure this world will turn implode. Or something like that.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I'm new here and I'm just curious, kind of a sanity check, do you really believe the president will be removed from office because of this?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beers
do you really believe the president will be removed from office because of this?


because of what exactly?
Why do you think he could be removed from office?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter


All caps is not used to denote an artificial person in a court of law. I explained several pages ago that there is no legal distinction between a real and artificial person, and I provided the text the showed what a person is.


Dude...

You are so wrong.

definition of a natural person.

Natural person is a real human being or an actual person as distinguished from a corporation which is often treated at law as a fictitious person.

link to source

definition of an artificial person

Artificial person is an entity created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being. It can be real or imaginary and for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. For example, corporation, company etc. An artificial person is also referred to as a fictitious person, juristic person, juridical person, legal person or moral person.

link to source

I don't understand why saying that you seem to be suffering the discomfort of cognitive dissonance is a personal insult.
As many times as I have been called an idiot in this thread...
Stating that someone appears to be suffering from cognitive dissonance is not even in the same ballpark.

Anyhoo...
Those are legal definitions of a natural person and an artificial person.
An artificial person is a corporation but can also be an individual.
This status arose from the passing of the 14th amendment.

I don't know the exact number, but the number of lawsuits filed in the first year after the 14th was passed and dealing exclusively with the 14th was like 100 to 1 in favor of corporations.

EDIT TO ADD:
I really do have to go to sleep.
edit on 24/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)
edit on 24/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


There I deleted it.

I apologize if it offended you.

Cool now?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Originally posted by flyswatter


All caps is not used to denote an artificial person in a court of law. I explained several pages ago that there is no legal distinction between a real and artificial person, and I provided the text the showed what a person is.


Dude...

You are so wrong.

definition of a natural person.

Natural person is a real human being or an actual person as distinguished from a corporation which is often treated at law as a fictitious person.

link to source

definition of an artificial person

Artificial person is an entity created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being. It can be real or imaginary and for the purpose of legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being. For example, corporation, company etc. An artificial person is also referred to as a fictitious person, juristic person, juridical person, legal person or moral person.

link to source

I don't understand why saying that you seem to be suffering the discomfort of cognitive dissonance is a personal insult.
As many times as I have been called an idiot in this thread...
Stating that someone appears to be suffering from cognitive dissonance is not even in the same ballpark.

Anyhoo...
Those are legal definitions of a natural person and an artificial person.
An artificial person is a corporation but can also be an individual.
This status arose from the passing of the 14th amendment.

I don't know the exact number, but the number of lawsuits filed in the first year after the 14th was passed and dealing exclusively with the 14th was like 100 to 1 in favor of corporations.

EDIT TO ADD:
I really do have to go to sleep.
edit on 24/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)
edit on 24/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



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.

What it comes down to is this:

A natural person is a real person.

An artificial person is another entity that is treated "more or less as a human being" (your link's words, not mine). If it was a human being, it would be treated as a human being, leaving off that more or less part


Both of these definitions are covered wholly by what I have posted above. The wording I used when saying there was no difference could have been better, but what I am getting at is very clearly explained above. Again, not by my interpretations, but by wording of the law itself.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Still no quote on that miracle law that isn't written down anywhere and by acts of magic apply to all? I kinda wonder how they're supposed to teach that or enforce that on anyone if noone bothered to actually to type it down? Well, workings of magic surely.
Well freemen keep on dancing around the subject! It's





new topics
top topics
 
120
<< 62  63  64    66 >>

log in

join