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: 15
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   
tax.ohio.gov...

Look at this tax form. Notice how on the very first page where it says Corporation name "USE UPPERCASE LETTERS", should be sufficient proof that Corporations are spelled in All Caps. Corporations are artificial persons or legal fictions. Enough proof now?




posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Yeah for ocr. You still haven't shown a single law that would define the use of caps. Tax return form is not a fracking law.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Further elaborated:




Gregg's Manual of English: "A name spelled in all capital letters or a name initialed, is not a proper noun denoting a specific person, but is a fictitious name, or a name of a dead person, or a nom de guerre."


This also states that 14th amendment citizens are fictional entities.

csa.systekproof.com...
edit on 27-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Now you're citing a manual for english? Where's the law? I don't care about mail, tax returns, dictionaries. I want a law and if you can't find one then you're lying about the whole caps thing.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I'm not lying; you are just being too dense to put it together. I cited you a grammar manual for the purposes of showing you that the only time you write a name in all caps is when you are citing a fictitious person. The government documents cite that a proper persons name is to be spelled John Doe, so by knowingly spelling your name JOHN DOE, they are referencing a fictitious person, or a legal fiction, such as a corporation. When you John Doe appear on the behalf of JOHN DOE, the confirmation is made, and you assume the same identity. I have attempted to spoon feed you all as much as possible. I have made everything painfully obvious for those of you who can put puzzles together.


Remember that law Phage pointed out about Like names being accepted? That is the law that busts you when you accept the name of the fictitious entity; because you are accepted as one and the same. Believe what you want; I've done all I needed to prove myself in my eyes. You can't make the horse drink.

edit on 27-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


I can't believe you still don't understand; they don't need to write a direct law in order to accomplish something like this. Slaves can't own property; try not paying your 'property' taxes. Even if your grandfathers fathers father owned it; they can reposess the land. Try asking the Indians. You have a warranty deed; which is considered the color 'copy/like' of a title but not the title. Only way you own the property is if you have the land patent.
edit on 27-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
...and still no law? Well I guess I caught you lying then



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Prove me wrong. I should have realized you were just trolling. Oh well #ignored. Don't have the time or the inclination to argue with those who are clearly being obtuse.
edit on 27-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Nice one. You made the claim. Burden of proof lies solely on you.

[Edit to add] I catch you making up stuff and now I'm "being obtuse"? That wont make your argument seem that credible.
edit on 27/7/2012 by PsykoOps because: add



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Obviously you haven't paid a lot of attention in court. Lawyers make claims all the time; yet somehow it's the defendant who has to prove it isn't true...You don't know the law so why do I bother? #ignored



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


They don't need a law to follow a rule of grammar.

~Debunked.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
First of all this is a court of law now? And we're lawyers? Wow.



They don't need a law to follow a rule of grammar.
~Debunked.


...and now you claim there is no law? Make up your mind dude.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
First of all this is a court of law now? And we're lawyers? Wow.



They don't need a law to follow a rule of grammar.
~Debunked.


...and now you claim there is no law? Make up your mind dude.


Hard to say that he is "lying" here. Rather than lying, it's more of a case of delusional interpretation. If he honestly believes what he's saying, there really isnt any intent to deceive.

People need to exercise caution when reading what he says and having a thought about putting it to a test. Parts of the Freeman arguments are seen as flat-out scams and lies, while others have also been shot down in court. Regardless of what he is saying, the courts do not recognize he argument as valid and you will absolutely not win a case walking into court with what he is saying.

As long as people are educated on the above, feel free to read what he has to say and entertain yourselves.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I do read what he posts. I just dont care. I'm looking for that one very simple fact, is it a law or not? There's tons of opinions and "educated" people talking about it but I just want to see the source.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I do read what he posts. I just dont care. I'm looking for that one very simple fact, is it a law or not? There's tons of opinions and "educated" people talking about it but I just want to see the source.


He cant quote it because there isn't one. What we have is a bunch of different laws, statutes, regulations, etc. that he is interpreting in a manner not at all consistent with today's courts. He could never win this argument in court, and he knows it.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


This is simply not true. I have shown you where fictitious entities are represented by an all caps name in a grammar book. I have shown you tax documents requiring corporations to print their name in all caps. Corporations are legal fictions, or artificial persons. JOHN DOE, is considered as such.

Instead of being biased and reading a link on rationalwiki or affiliates, try looking a bit deeper. It is far above their knowledge to declare that no judge has ever ruled in favor. This is extremely biased and a cherry picking of information. There are PLENTY of cases, where people who have been charged with a crime say 'driving without a license' and had the charge dismissed. This is simply not truthful to state that none of this has ever worked.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Link those cases? Also a grammar book does not a law make.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by flyswatter
 


Oh really? You should do more research than just reading a link or two. They don't speak for ALL of the courtcases, that have ever taken place.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by flyswatter
 


This is simply not true. I have shown you where fictitious entities are represented by an all caps name in a grammar book. I have shown you tax documents requiring corporations to print their name in all caps. Corporations are legal fictions, or artificial persons. JOHN DOE, is considered as such.

Instead of being biased and reading a link on rationalwiki or affiliates, try looking a bit deeper. It is far above their knowledge to declare that no judge has ever ruled in favor. This is extremely biased and a cherry picking of information. There are PLENTY of cases, where people who have been charged with a crime say 'driving without a license' and had the charge dismissed. This is simply not truthful to state that none of this has ever worked.


Ok, understand ... having a charge dropped or having a case dismissed does absolutely nothing for your argument unless it happens because of the same argument that you are making.

If you are confident, then please do show us where your argument has been used successfully in a court of law. It is not up to us to prove these cases dont exist; it is up to you to prove that they DO exist.

Without prejudice, here is a link for others to take a look at:
en.wikipedia.org...

Do not take the above as an absolute authority, as it is never good to use a single site as such. Instead, use it as a starting point to find information elsewhere.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Also pay attention to the sources that a wikiped article will list. A good article will list all sources it can so you can find them and look them up yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join