Why Obama Does Not Have A Birth Certificate

page: 20
23
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


No, your buddy troll said that, you agree with him.




posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


You didn't read it again either. 'IT' never said that as in the quote. Not as in I, personally.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
Does anybody think that many "laws" get there by way of "implied" and "intended" precedents ?

implied-in-fact contract.

quasi contract.

UCC, § 1-201. General Definitions.

(b)(27) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.



Thank you for such a great post.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   


Person: “In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms.” Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

“...not every human being is a person..." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1957 & 1968, p.1300.



Just to show how the Law is twisted in what they accept as definitions, and what we accept the meanings as normally.

Now apply this directly to.




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 or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 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.
edit on 29-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
... have you given up on the caps argument already? Admid that it doesn't excist and we can then argue about other aspects.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


It directly applies to the 'persons'; still looking for solid irrefutable evidence for you all who don't want to accept things. Not still looking in the sense it doesn't exist; but looking for a more reputable link I know you can't refuse.
edit on 29-7-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Well I wont care for anyones opinion on the issue. I wouldn't care if a supreme court judge would say that caps means slavery. I only care about the actual law and if you cant find it then it simply doesn't excists. We've been over this quite a few times already.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 





Does anybody think that many "laws" get there by way of "implied" and "intended" precedents ? implied-in-fact contract. quasi contract.


Why do I need so strongly to 'prove' a US law to somebody that lives in Finland? Just wondering.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Cause I care? I mean this is a discussion board after all?



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
This is a long thread and I haven't read it all so I apologize if this has already been posted:

www.wasobamaborninkenya.com...

This site has several documents from a guy named Lucas Daniel Smith who wrote a letter to congress about Obama's birth certificate in Kenya. He apparently went to Kenya in February 2009 and obtained Kenyan bc. You can download the letter AND the birth certicate on this site. It's very interesting!



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Fair enough.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Let's make it easy. Let's forget slavery, people, government role, constitution. Is there any law about capitalization of persons name?
I can understand if some laws are fragmented and difficult to understand. However the cornerstone of this is that bit about caps. If we isolate that we take away the complexity argument and start there and then move on to the next bit etc.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Most of it goes on a round about way of saying it. Official government documents state that a proper name belonging to a natural person, be spelled John Doe. However, by directly going against this, and using JOHN DOE, suggests a fictional person, which could be why those Tax documents required Corporations to present their names in All Caps. There are some that are quite vague, and I believe I saw something in reference to UCC about Corporations as well..

See I would normally shrug this off as inconsequential; however there is a distinct difference in the type of mail that appears to John Doe, and the mail that appears to JOHN DOE. This can not be so easily shrugged off. There is a difference in who who they are referring to.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join