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.
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.
Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
Actually I have spoken to a lawyer; and a very good one I might add.
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.
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?
against unreasonable searches
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
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.
Originally posted by Beers
do you really believe the president will be removed from office because of this?
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.
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.
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.
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)