Why Obama Does Not Have A Birth Certificate

reply to post by PsykoOps

Oh... I guess not. So it is in fact reality but nowhere written down? It only excists in peoples imagination then? Not much of a law if you ask me.

See psyko... that is the thing.

This entire hoo hah is based on what is known as a legal fiction.

This is the definition of legal fiction from an online legal dictionary-

n. a presumption of fact assumed by a court for convenience, consistency or to achieve justice. There is an old adage: "Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions."

This is not based on a law.
A legal fiction is an assumption made under law.
BIG DIFFERENCE.

You should note that this definition came from a legal dictionary.

The reason that attorneys go to school and take the bar is because they have to be able to wrap their tiny little treasonous brains around concepts like this when understanding the REAL way the law works.
Shows like Law and Order and CSI have perverted the common view of the legal system.

Courts can operate under assumptions and NOT LAW.
This is especially prevalent in contract law.

But, like I said, this takes some explainin' and the vast majority of folks that criticize the freeman argument rely on invective to make their case because they lack the will power to focus long enough to understand what this all means.

And thus they pay lawyers exorbitant amounts of money when needed.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Not could they find the IRS or Federal Reserve listed as an agency of the Treasury or a government owned corporation on those two .gov links I posted.

So it's written but it is written so stealthily that only "freemen" can find it. Well that makes perfect sense...

reply to post by PsykoOps


It is written so stealthily only the discerning will find it.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
So it's written but it is written so stealthily that only "freemen" can find it. Well that makes perfect sense...

Did you actually read the definition of a legal fiction?

A good example of a legal fiction is this.
Any employer is held responsible for the wrongs of their employees in a court of civil law.
3rd party liability.
The employer did not commit these wrongs, but in the eyes of the law they are responsible for them.

Legal fictions generally attribute the responsibility for payment, or liability, to a 3rd party.

Even though you, as in the natural person you, are not the artificial person you, which is your corporate self as acknowledged through the ALL CAPS name, natural you is held responsible for the debts or liabilities accrued by the artificial person.
And you acquire this through the act of a legal fiction.

When you go into court or you sign a contract with your name in ALL CAPS you are assuming liability for your artificial person.

Definition of assume from a legal dictionary.

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. Example: Bob Buyer pays part of the price of a piece of real property by taking over the debt that Sally Seller had on the property. However, usually the original owner to whom Sally owes the debt must agree to the assumption.

link to source

Are you understanding any of this psyko?

Here is a very interesting video for you Psyko and others.



Slavery was abolished; So they changed their methods of slavery.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Originally posted by PsykoOps
So it's written but it is written so stealthily that only "freemen" can find it. Well that makes perfect sense...

Did you actually read the definition of a legal fiction?

A good example of a legal fiction is this.
Any employer is held responsible for the wrongs of their employees in a court of civil law.
3rd party liability.
The employer did not commit these wrongs, but in the eyes of the law they are responsible for them.

Legal fictions generally attribute the responsibility for payment, or liability, to a 3rd party.

Even though you, as in the natural person you, are not the artificial person you, which is your corporate self as acknowledged through the ALL CAPS name, natural you is held responsible for the debts or liabilities accrued by the artificial person.
And you acquire this through the act of a legal fiction.

When you go into court or you sign a contract with your name in ALL CAPS you are assuming liability for your artificial person.

Definition of assume from a legal dictionary.

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. Example: Bob Buyer pays part of the price of a piece of real property by taking over the debt that Sally Seller had on the property. However, usually the original owner to whom Sally owes the debt must agree to the assumption.

link to source

Are you understanding any of this psyko?

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

Going to post one reply to this issue, for others to chew on here.

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". 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. Again, not by my interpretations, but by wording of the law itself.

People can take this as they wish, but shown above is the definition of person.

Carry on.

reply to post by flyswatter

An artificial person is another entity that is treated "more or less as a human being". If it was a human being, it would be treated as a human being, leaving off that more or less part ..

You are sooooo wrong.

This is from the wikipedia entrance on legal personality.

Legal personality (also artificial personality, juridical personality, and juristic personality) is the characteristic of a non-living entity regarded by law to have the status of personhood.

You might think that by this definition you would be right.
It says that an artificial person is a non-living entity.
The problem with your argument however is that you seem to be saying that a natural person cannot also assume the liabilities associated with an artificial person.
Like every other issue that we have discussed, you are WRONG.

The natural person takes on these liabilities through a legal fiction.

Read a bit further into this definition.

A legal person (Latin: persona ficta) (also artificial person, juridical person, juristic person, and body corporate, also commonly called a vehicle) has a legal name and has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities under law, just as natural persons (humans) do. The concept of a legal person is a fundamental legal fiction. It is pertinent to the philosophy of law, as it is essential to laws affecting a corporation (corporations law) (the law of business associations).

Nothing here... right... seems as if you are correct.

A HA. The very next line.

Legal personality allows one or more natural persons to act as a single entity (a composite person) for legal purposes.

It only takes one or more persons...
That would mean that ONE natural person can assume the legal fiction of an artificial person.

link to source

You can be a natural person and also be an artificial person.
It just said this.

Read it again.

Depending upon the nature of the interaction, more specifically under which contracted situation you find yourself, you can be recognized as an artificial person or a natural person.

You are wrong.
You are mistaken.
You have been mislead.

When are you gonna just admit that you are wrong?

Carry on.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


I am quoting the Constitution, you are quoting Wikipedia.

You are certainly entitled to interpret the quote how you see fit. But how you or I interpret it makes absolutely no difference. What matters is how the courts (more specifically the Supreme Court) interpret it. By law, the SCOTUS interpretations are right and just.

Just to make this clear.

A legal personality is an aspect to an artificial person.

Since technically an natural person can't truly be artificial, what is happening is that the natural person ASSUMES the legal personality of the artificial person.
The artificial person is NOT the natural person.

They are separate.
Because the artificial person is a NON-ENTITY.

But what is happening is the natural person is assuming the legal personality of the artificial person.

This is because a non-entity has rights.
Because the non-entity has rights, but is a non-entity, it takes the assumed legal personality, assumed by one or more flesh and blood natural persons (in this case just one), to exercise the rights and privileges of the non-entity.

Do you understand now flyswatter?

Originally posted by flyswatter
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

I am quoting the Constitution, you are quoting Wikipedia.

You are certainly entitled to interpret the quote how you see fit. But how you or I interpret it makes absolutely no difference. What matters is how the courts (more specifically the Supreme Court) interpret it. By law, the SCOTUS interpretations are right and just.

PLEASE!!!

Argument ad hominem.
I am quoting you law per the Uniform Commerce Code.

Like always... You are attacking the source and not the information.

What the Supreme Court and Constitution says is not wrong.

***see my explanation on legal personality.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


"Now to sum this up and finish it off; Obama will never produce a valid birth certificate because in reality doing so would PREVENT him from being President; because slaves can not be president. 14th Amendment citizens can not be president because they are the slaves."

You are wrong in the assertion that Obama was a slave or descended from a slave.
His mother is a white American - so not a slave.
His father is a free brown man from Kenya - so not a slave.

Your logic does not work.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Just to make this clear.

A legal personality is an aspect to an artificial person.

Since technically an natural person can't truly be artificial, what is happening is that the natural person ASSUMES the legal personality of the artificial person.
The artificial person is NOT the natural person.

They are separate.
Because the artificial person is a NON-ENTITY.

But what is happening is the natural person is assuming the legal personality of the artificial person.

This is because a non-entity has rights.
Because the non-entity has rights, but is a non-entity, it takes the assumed legal personality, assumed by one or more flesh and blood natural persons (in this case just one), to exercise the rights and privileges of the non-entity.

Do you understand now flyswatter?

I've understood what you've been trying to say from Day 1. I just dont agree with it. But this isnt a place where we're all forced to agree, so that really isnt much of a concern on either end, I'm sure.

I believe your partner in crime Veritas was in the process of talking to a lawyer about all of this stuff, right? We'll just have to see how that pans out (if its true), becuase we're obviously not going to be changing each other's minds on this

Rather than argue about it until we're blue in the face, lets just leave it in the hands of the courts to decide if I am wrong

reply to post by flyswatter


If you wish to continue saying that this is not true then that is your prerogative, but I don't understand how you can deny contract law.

Whether or not this is true is not up for debate.

You are correct that a natural person cannot be an artificial person.

But what is happening, and what I have been saying and apparently you understand, is that the natural person assumes the privileges, immunities and liabilities associated with the legal personality.

That is assuming the legal personality.

What is really the only debatable issue is whether or not we can find remedy under contract law for assumption of this artificial person.
It would seem as though we could.
But the courts have been very hesitant to offer remedy.

However, this could be due to procedural issues.

Talking to a lawyer will do no good.

Lawyers are officers of the court.
They are to always protect the best interests of the court because that is their bread and butter.

I have had lawyers tell me the truth.
That is why I understand this, but most will not.
And they have no obligation to tell the truth.

Honesty in this situation would be biting the hand that feeds them.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


You haven't told the truth, just your interpretation of it.

Sure, there are different laws and you can quote them all you want to, but in the end we know that you're just misusing them wrong and the courts do not agree with you, and they are not true evidence that Obama does not have a bc.

He's released it twice, and not all your bs can disprove that they are fakes.

Any intelligent person can see through your bs.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by flyswatter

 

If you wish to continue saying that this is not true then that is your prerogative, but I don't understand how you can deny contract law.

Whether or not this is true is not up for debate.

You are correct that a natural person cannot be an artificial person.

But what is happening, and what I have been saying and apparently you understand, is that the natural person assumes the privileges, immunities and liabilities associated with the legal personality.

That is assuming the legal personality.

What is really the only debatable issue is whether or not we can find remedy under contract law for assumption of this artificial person.
It would seem as though we could.
But the courts have been very hesitant to offer remedy.

However, this could be due to procedural issues.

Talking to a lawyer will do no good.

Lawyers are officers of the court.
They are to always protect the best interests of the court because that is their bread and butter.

I have had lawyers tell me the truth.
That is why I understand this, but most will not.
And they have no obligation to tell the truth.

Honesty in this situation would be biting the hand that feeds them.

Ok, so going with your line of thinking there ... if one is to believe that you are correct, how could it even be possible that this situation would be remedied? If lawyers are useless in this situation, and the courts are useless in this situation, what method of recourse could you possibly have?

And here's a question, if anyone is so distrustful of all authority figures, why would they believe anyone like Arpaio anyway? It seems to me that they would consider them liars as well.

Ah, gotta love that confirmation bias.

reply to post by Sailor Sam


Obviously didn't read the post..It has nothing to do with skin color or parents. Slavery was outlawed; so they changed how they enslaved people.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


To add onto this; Go back and read the law definition of "assume" and apply that to the legal personality. Not at you Kyvie; this is directed towards the others.

Sadam; I am close to reporting you to the mods for off-topic discussion. This thread is not about Arpaio, because I do not even believe Arpaio knows why he doesn't have one. For the last time; THIS IS NOT ABOUT KENYA.

Do you ever believe that they would or could let this be known? A mountain of lies collapses upon the submission of the truth; and they have built an empire based on those lies.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Then report me.

I believe it is, you can whine that it isn't all you want.

You're just using sophistry.

I see right through your BS.

And you're one to talk with how badly you derailed the thread about Arpaio.