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.

 

Why Obama Does Not Have A Birth Certificate

page: 14
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


If you read all of the material and understood it correctly, you would know your answer to a request for law was already answered.




posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
No you haven't.

You keep on telling us that we have to read between the lines and accept your word that you have, then you get angry and aggressive when we tell you we don't see what you are telling us. Then you deny it that you do this. That's what makes you a troll.

There is no law to support your claims.

None.

You've gone on for a lot of pages, but you haven't been able to convince anybody and most of us believe you're a troll who is just playing games.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
reply to post by randomname
 

Kenya was a British colony until 1964, the British ran a pretty efficient system ... the District Commissioners and their staffs were top notch administrators who kept meticulous records.

If Obama was in fact born in Kenya, you can bet the British would have found records of it by now. They brought all the colonial government documents with them back to Blighty upon independence.


a) truthfully, this is a brilliant observation. Thank you. I agree with most of what you said.
b) at the same time, I doubt that colonial powers took upon themselves to haul all the paperwork from the former colony back to London. This would be pretty useless, don't you think?
c) if I'm right about (b), it would still be likely that a record existed in Kenya.

To add to your post, it was the British who created a pretty functional education system in Kenya. "No child left behind". So indeed, I do believe that proper paperwork was being kept at most times.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


Most of us? What 5 people dictate the entire board? As a matter of fact, I have 23 flags. 23 > 5

en.wikipedia.org...


You have to learn this before you can understand the law. Don't just think that any old person can pick this up without proper research, just reading the words of some court decisions. You have to understand what words mean and how things really work. Let me ask you a question.

Do you think they would blatantly put into Law, "Any persons name that shall be spelled in all capital letters shall henceforth be considered a slave and property of their federal government."?

No. Because then we all find this out by looking up one statue, we all rebel, and since guns are still out in private ownership, they can't do that. So they have to entangle it in legal meanings and definitions that are far surpassed the complexity of creating a simple statue, code, or rule/regulations. This is the POINT. It is meant to discourage the people as a whole from learning the law, and forced to rely on 'Lawyers'. They do not teach specialized law, statues and regulations in school during 1-12. Sure they read over the Constitution but they surely don't tell you about the Legalese..

I am not here to prove anything to anybody. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear, will find what I say to be true on their own. Those who could not take the risk of questioning that type of reality, prefer safety over truth.
edit on 25-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
By the way; Look at Gravestones, they are in all caps.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Say to a cop that you don't understand and you'll be arrested, beaten, tazed, peper sprayed or shot.

Say to a judge that you don't understand and you could be thrown in jail for an undetermined time until you admit you do understand.

The laws of phyics come before these goofy speculative freeman laws your talking about. So you piss someone off they get pissed and put you in a world of hurt. That's real life. and the causality that people actually understand in real life and in there day to day interactions.

yes thing freeman all you want but the moment your in front of a judge your not a freeman okay. Your a dude with limited power. They have all the power and they'll crush you like a bug if you don't mind you p's and q's.

Again the birth certificate doesn't do anything to his presidency if he has one or doesn't have one. It's completely irrelavent. Why? It's simple because no one has any power to go in and change anything.

You go knock on the white house, saying that obama needs this or that to be in there, well they'll lock you up and throw away the key. The law of physics applies first before any other law. And by that law he's entered the white house, and by that law he'll stay there until they decide to replace him with another person who may or may not have any documenation as to who they are. Again irrelavent.

A piece of paper doesn't get you into the white house or take you away from it. It's thousands of key people all having your back and agreeing that you'll take on this roll for x amount of years. And once you take that office no one's gonna get rid of you over some dumb piece of paper when you got the forces of all the mil, police, secret service, fbi, cia all guarding you. And even then lets say somehow the FBI decided that they needed to arrest the president. Well good luck going threw the secret service. They'd need a small army.

So law of physics first. Then other laws start to kick in. And as for freeman laws it's more a fantasy in this society we're dealing in. Because it's better to be a citizen than a freeman anyday. at least you can go on a vacation.

The system is in place. You can't easily beat or work contrary in life to it. Life is too much of a struggle as is. All you can do is go with the flow. Go along with the system, and be a good outsanding member of society so generally you'll be left alone, other than maybe an audit or two. The birthers are morons if you ask me.


edit on 25-7-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   


If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. - Joseph Goebbels (29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945) was a German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. He was one of German dictator Adolf Hitler's closest associates and most devout followers.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


I never said for one second that "I don't understand." was all that you needed to know. As a matter of fact, you must know much more than just one or two things. You have to understand how the whole system of operations works. I disagree that the cops can physically assault you for simply stating that you don't understand. That's complete BS. Show me a law that says I can't tell them I don't understand. Everything that you do in regards to the law or authority is consensual. May I see some ID? Do you mind if I search your car? Would you mind stating your name for the court?

You could easily ask them under what grounds they have probable cause to see your ID, and say no they may not. There is no law stating you must give them an ID, when they ask for it. Only that you must carry one. Yes, I do mind if you search my car, per 4th amendment I am protected against unreasonable searches and seizures unless upon acquisition of a search warrant or probable cause, in which case particularly describing what you are searching for and specifically where it is at. If I tell you my name, will I have entered a contract with you? It is all based on consent. However, if you don't consent, you still have to know how to play by their rules as to WHY you don't consent.
edit on 25-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

This is exactly what everyone is.





§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.

(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient. (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction. then one needs to know what "accord and satisfaction" means... accord and satisfaction n. an agreement to accept less than is legally due in order to wrap up the matter. Once the accord and satisfaction is made and the amount paid (even though it is less than owed) the debt is wiped out since the new agreement (accord) and payment (the satisfaction) replaces the original obligation. This tells me that unless one is settling for a diminished amount in a disagreement, if one declares that all rights are reserved, then, by golly, all rights are reserved. The rights that are unknowingly given up have been kept - if one does not declare that they are reserved, it is understood that they are freely given away by the contract, even though they are not distinctively declared to be given away.


By not reserving your rights you contract and forfeit them away by saying "I understand."

And here is another link for you to read and get a better understanding.
www.expertlaw.com...
edit on 26-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Do you think they would blatantly put into Law, "Any persons name that shall be spelled in all capital letters shall henceforth be considered a slave and property of their federal government."?


Well not in exact words but yeah. If it's not then it doesn't excist. Even if the whole slave part, caps part, persons etc. would all be in different laws you could've just quoted them. So where exactly is any law about any caps?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


It exists; you need to study the material on legal fictions, corporations, registered organizations. There are no rules of grammar that require you to represent a name in all capital letters, and even their own documents state this. So why do they go against the very documents they publish by sending court summons to JOHN DOE? This is all legalese. They pronounce it in a much more subtle way, that can only be ascertained by connecting the dots. As have said before, only the discerning will figure it out.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


They would never set laws up that way, to believe so is a fallacy. Something this monumental cannot be allowed to easily be told. So no they would never directly quote something they are trying to hide like that. Do you realize the implications if the world could find out that easily and immediately started filing mass lawsuits against the Government? It would be hell.
edit on 26-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


It exists; you need to study the material on legal fictions, corporations, registered organizations. There are no rules of grammar that require you to represent a name in all capital letters, and even their own documents state this. So why do they go against the very documents they publish by sending court summons to JOHN DOE? This is all legalese. They pronounce it in a much more subtle way, that can only be ascertained by connecting the dots. As have said before, only the discerning will figure it out.


So you're saying take a pinch of this law, a pinch of that law, a dab of another law, put them all in a bowl and mix well, and you will have a law that explains the use of capitals instead of lower case? Sure thing, boss.

How about you put your money where your mouth is and put it to a test for us? If you're so confident and sure that you are right, that shouldnt be a problem. Hop in your car, find some construction zones. Do 35mph through a few of those 15mph zones, until a cop stops you. Put your theories to a test. But make sure you get a video of it. We all need some humor in the morning.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Well:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


That's pretty straight forward. So your claim is that they dont make straight forward laws?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


What does that have to do with a massive conspiracy? It's a shame they've already broken those rights. Pay more attention to the news. Hell second amendment is pretty straight forward too, but please explain to me why you would need a license to have a gun.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...



The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.


Now how can we have a second amendment right to bear arms that can not be infringed when it's already been made illegal. "It's a safety issue". BS, anybody that wants to break the rules with a gun is going to do so, making stricter laws isn't going to stop that, but encourage it. Even if we didn't have stricter laws; you could still punish the people who misuse Guns through common law. There would be a damaged party requiring compensation.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   


U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress





The "United States" is defined in Title 28 USC Sec. 3002(15)(A) as a "Federal corporation".





A municipal corporation in its broader sense, such as the United States, consists of the inhabitants (U.S. citizens) of a designated area (federal United States). And a corporation can through its legislative branch create artificial persons, who are termed citizens of the municipal corporation. Can an artificial person create a flesh and blood natural man? Can the creator create a being superior to itself? Or can an artificial person only create (make) another artificial person? I claim that when the municipal corporation United States, creates a citizen through legislative act, that citizen is then a corporate U.S. citizen. That corporate citizen's name is spelled in all capital letters, to indicate that it is an artificial person, as distinguished from a natural person whose name is spelled in upper and lower case letters. That corporate citizen is subject to its creator, the U.S. government, and is subject to its exclusive jurisdiction. Constitution of the United States of America

14th Amendment. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. A citizen of the United States is a corporate citizen, with corporate status, created by the corporation called United States, and is acting as their agent for the purpose of collecting revenue. This citizen has only privileges and immunities under the 14th Amendment. A natural person has inalienable rights, secured by the Constitution. A person with corporate status, would have corporate income.





Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. Black's 6th Ed.





The 14th Amendment applies to "persons", and person in legal parlance means an artificial person, in distinction from a natural person. "Collective" "naturalization occurs when designated groups" (inhabitants) "are made (created) citizens by a law of Congress". These artificial persons were "created and devised by human laws (14th Amendment U.S. citizen) for the (revenue) purposes of society and government", and have their names spelled in all capital letters. These designated groups are "made" or created corporate citizens/employees and are distinguished from natural persons. A natural person, with his named spelled in upper and lower case letters, has inalienable rights, and is NOT a corporate U.S. citizen. An artificial person, and corporate citizen of the United States, has his name spelled in all capital letters. A natural person cannot be an artificial person at the same time. The theme of the collective entity rule states: Brasswell v. United States 487 U.S. 99 (1988) quoting, United States v. White 322 U.S. 694 (1944) But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties, nor be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agents or officers and they are bound by its obligations.

Under the collective entity rule, if John Joseph Smith contracted to be a representative or agent of the corporate citizen JOHN JOSEPH SMITH, then he would not be able to exercise his inalienable rights, which are his personal rights. John Joseph Smith (American Citizen) is contracting to be the agent of JOHN JOSEPH SMITH (U.S. citizen), thereby waiving his inalienable rights. After the birth of John Joseph Smith, a new artificial person was created (JOHN JOSEPH SMITH), by the 14th Amendment, under the collective entity rule, and was naturalized as a corporate citizen of the United States. This did not destroy the natural person, but simply created a second separate legal entity, a legal fiction, artificial person. This legal fiction was created as an agent (U.S. citizen) of the corporate U.S. government to engage in commerce and collect revenue for the governments, federal, state, and local. You contracted to represent this artificial person, thereby waiving your inalienable rights.


Educate yourself;



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


There actually have been people who got off on simple possession charges, and traffic violations. As long as they can not produced a damaged party and you know how to force them to try you under common law; you can get off on anything. You just have to know the law and how it works. Court battles are like playing chess.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
www.law.cornell.edu...


(15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation;


Proof United States is a corporation.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
www.law.cornell.edu...


(15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation;


Proof United States is a corporation.

Other information needed;




Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785: "The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state". NY Re: Merrian, 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.CT. 1973, 41 L.Ed. 287. "The United States Government as such is fictitious and thus includes the States Government." Blacks Com. 133, Bouvier`s law dictionary, page 1215 (1914). All Law, which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void, chief Justice Marshall, Marbury Vs. Madison 5. U.S (1 Cranch) 137, 174,176, (1803) Title 18 USC 9 - Sec. 9. Vessel of the United States defined The term "vessel of the United States", as used in this title, means a vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.


I like how all any of you can say is 'prove this, prove that', but can't disprove any of it except for quoting biased websites.
edit on 27-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   


No State may convert a Right into a Privilege and require a License of Fee for the exercise of the Right. See Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 373 U.S. 262 If a State does erroneously require a License or Fee for exercise of that Right, the Citizen may Ignore the License and or Fee and exercise the Right with Total Impunity. See Schuttlesworth v. Birmingham 373 U.S 262. The definition of a "license" is: "A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on Land without possessing and estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is NOT assignable.

The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal or, a trespass, a tort, a clear violation of LAW and/or otherwise NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER AND CONDITION." See People v. Henderson, 391 Mich. 612, 218 N.W. 2nd 2 and 4. The definition of a "motor vehicle" is: "Motor Vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highway in the transportation or passengers, or passengers or property, or property or cargo. Title 18 U.S.C. part 1. chapter 2. sec 31.


For those that wanted to argue saying you need a license.




top topics



 
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join