Why Obama Does Not Have A Birth Certificate

reply to post by Phage


It's more along the lines of where they got the idea.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Conclusion: There are no official or unofficial English grammar style manuals or reference publications that recognize the use of full caps when writing a proper name. To do so is considered a legal fiction

www.ecclesia.org...

Because it doesn't appear in grammar books it has some legal meaning? That's hilarious nonsense.

reply to post by Phage


Legal words don't have to always follow the same rules or have same definitions as grammatical words; which is why they have separate law dictionaries.

www.dailypaul.com...

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

I know.
That's why that whole article is such utter nonsense. Show me a law concerning all caps.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

A blog?
So what?

reply to post by Phage


Did you read the information in the blog? What is a blog but somebody posting a thread? People post threads on ATS all day; does that mean everything here is not credible?

Read the blog and refute the information instead of attacking a link.

reply to post by Phage


The issue concerning the requirement for all caps was addressed in this article and others I posted.

Read it. That is the only way to learn. I can't spoon feed you everything.


www.scribd.com...

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

I saw nothing which has anything thing to do with the President's birth certificate or "all caps".
It is off topic but I disagree with the blogger's assessment.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


It is nonsense. No matter how many times it is said it is still nonsense. Remember the article you used as a source?

Even if a debtor name on the list does not agree exactly in style or punctuation with the name on the financing statement, I expect the court will accept certain close approximations, such as:
(1) The debtor name on the financing statement is all capital letters, but correct name contains lower case letters, eg, ERNST PUBLISHING CO., LLC v. Ernst Publishing Co., LLC
(2) Letters in the debtor name on the financing statement agree with the correct name, but not the punctuation, eg, ERNST PUBLISHING CO LLC v. Ernst Publishing Co., LLC
(3) The corporate ending of the organization name on the financing statement agrees with the correct
name, but is not abbreviated the same way, eg, ERNST PUBLISHING CO LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY v. Ernst Publishing Co., LLC.

www.cscglobal.com...

Capitilization doesn't matter. Punctuation doesn't matter. Abbreviation doesn't matter. Your own source!

reply to post by Phage


Then state your means of refutation. On what grounds do you disagree? It wasn't off-topic. It addresses legal fiction, which is involved in my whole argument. Read all of the article here -> www.scribd.com... it explains this. If I could, I'd copy the direct quotes but my left mouse button is getting weak and won't select right ):

While your OP is technically correct it's not about having a birth certificate it is about being able to prove you are a natural born citizen as defined in the constitution (yes even the post 1871 corporate version) The accepted method today of doing that is with a birth certificate.

However having said that the reason none of the so called congress and supreme court etc. care if he does is because he is the CEO of the corporation and they can change the rules with a memo like any corporation. This is why the birth certificate issue never gets any traction with them and never will. The corporate constitution closely resembles the real one to protect the facade of the several states united being the same as when they originally formed the compact.

The American public are hopelessly ignorant to all this and that they are ruled by a corporation posing as the original American republic even though they can look it up on Dun & Bradstreet. here is an article i wrote on it a few years ago for more info: www.dailypaul.com...

reply to post by Phage


It's not saying that those things don't matter.. You haven't been reading the other links. When you go to court as John Doe, and represent JOHN DOE you are assuming one and the same personality and responsibilities. Go back and find the definition that Kyvie posted of legal definition 'assume'. That is why they accept the close approximations..You as John Doe are answering and appearing on behalf of the court summons for JOHN DOE.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

The blog post has nothing to do with "legal fiction", the President's birth certificate, or "all caps". The claim is that, because you have a social security number it makes you a Federal employee. It doesn't.

can the moderators reduce this topic down to 1 or 2 threads, we are gettting the same crap over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over......there are people on ATS who WILL NEVER BELIEVE OBAMAS BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS REAL...at least UFO's, 9/11, have some credible evidence and witnesses to the subjects.
what i would like to see is hundreds of threads on romneys tax records, with thousands of graphs, statistics, references, FOIA requests...but of course, that "side of the aisle" is hardly represented here. i fear ATS is turning into a pseudo-right-wing blog, i hope i'm wrong.

reply to post by Phage


Quit associating different links with different posts. The link I post for that reply was the one you were meant to read in regards to all caps and legal fiction; it did NOT apply to the blog/thread from the DailyPaul.

reply to post by jimmyx


I said as well I would like to see Romney's tax returns. My requests about Obama aren't 'because he's black'. Seriously grow up people. I could care less about that. I am not going to elect anybody I know nothing about. Therefore I would like to see tax returns and a birth certificate. If I was running for President, and this was being asked of my I would supply the information just like any other job.

reply to post by Phage


I asked to quote that law to a point of almost harrasment because I didn't get a straight quote. Only thing I got was that it is obscured in laws and they cant be quoted. Only keen people know about them or something.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Better watch out or he'll put you SUPER SECRET DOUBLE PROBATION!

It's a little known dean's clause that only deans know about, you know.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Phage

 

I asked to quote that law to a point of almost harrasment because I didn't get a straight quote. Only thing I got was that it is obscured in laws and they cant be quoted. Only keen people know about them or something.

I believe it was said that only the discerning can find it, or understand it. Damn, I guess he's saying that 99% of this country is not discerning enough to understand fantasy, and we're part of that 99%.