withholding by the Social Security Administration of records of Harry Bounel, whose Social securit

reply to post by hellobruce


And why demand others to post the law, feign ignorance of it, and then turn around and yell at the person posting the law when you obviously were all ready to post what you knew about this law even when asking others to post it. Why didn't you just post it your self.

Not much for collaboration, are you. Like to cause friction, dont'cha?

VeritasAequitas

Wrabbit2000
Over 200 cases tried or brought before courts on this overall issue. 25 of them at the Super Court level. 100% defeat or dismiss. No exception. None worked.

I guess she's figuring she'll make a record or something since she's responsible for so many of the above number already.

edit on 25-12-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Wouldn't have anything to do with corrupted judicial officials would it?

Oh, I think it has much more to do with a simple lack of legal basis, evidence or workable theory to stand on.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


But are you not really willing to entertain the idea? How far do you believe the corruption of our government exists Wrabbit? If the Banking institutions can buy PRESIDENTS; don't you think they could throw a measly 50k a State registrar, and select few relevant people to forge official documents?

reply to post by HoboHumpinSloboBabe


My earlier thread is starting to look all the more timely in my opinion...

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Can you provide evidence for these '200 cases' along with transcripts to their court cases, and the names of the judges who presided over them?

It's odd you'd ask this....as I logged in this morning to find a reply on this thread from you, coming from the message I specifically linked the proof you seek. Perhaps you forgot... That's fine. I keep that link handy since it's a very comprehensive resource of the failed attempts to attack our President on this issue.

Birther Score Card

Now within that document are the 207 cases which have been heard, presided over or looked at by different courts all over the nation (As of April if 2012). 201 of those, as of last April, we flat failed losses. Some were dismissed with prejudice. Some just outright dismissed and some defeated early on. NONE....found traction. NONE worked. All were filed, near as I can tell, with full effort given. None of them were 'just kidding' or anything... Meaning, with all efforts made, it's a 100% fail rate on what has been tried....with 6 pending at the time of the creation of that document.

Attached to this one are an additional 50 case citations (Linked to original documents or related filing papers, as the other 207 are) from Keith Judd. Those filings also encompass courts across the nation.

So, any suggestion this hasn't been heard in court....scores of times now...is patently absurd and false to state. Easily proven as such.

Unlike a static list, that one has links for EACH case to IT'S OWN documents, explaining a given cases's specifics and why it was dismissed or defeated. I've skimmed over the docs to a fair representation of those 257 case citations. They are worth reading.


We all have a right to our opinions. We do not have a right to our own set of facts.

That list comprises fully documented and supported history of the court progress for people pushing this issue. I hope it helps the discussion some and I have much more to add if we get going in a serious way for this today. Hundreds of pages more to add.

rupertg
Where is lil Bush, Clinton, Bush sr., Reagan's birth certificate or Social Security number?
That is right, i forgot they get a free pass. I wonder if any "birthers" wanted to see John 'Panama' McCain's long form? Nahhh...

Funny that, no previous President had too show his BC to the public, but as soon as Obama comes along some people start demanding all sorts of documents from him, and even when he shows them they claim they are forged....

So what is different about Obama... let us have a look at a picture of all of them - oh, it is obvious, isn't it!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I'm like.... 10 cases in and all of those judges have high political ties to the Bill Clinton administration and others of sketchiness (Reaganomics : Give it to the Corporations so they can hoard it under the false idea of creating jobs).... Tell me something, and I'd like for you to consider it very, very carefully...

Who's set of facts do you have, hmm?

hellobruce

rupertg
Where is lil Bush, Clinton, Bush sr., Reagan's birth certificate or Social Security number?
That is right, i forgot they get a free pass. I wonder if any "birthers" wanted to see John 'Panama' McCain's long form? Nahhh...

Funny that, no previous President had too show his BC to the public, but as soon as Obama comes along some people start demanding all sorts of documents from him, and even when he shows them they claim they are forged....

So what is different about Obama... let us have a look at a picture of all of them - oh, it is obvious, isn't it!

Possibly, people asked him to prove it because certain things about his life didn't add up under scrutiny hmm? Nice to know you utilized cheap debate tactics while inserting your own strawman argument and a number of other mistakes..

Take a lesson....

You wanna spew propaganda and rhetoric?

"If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

Isn't that right? Funny the double standards people hold isn't it? That's called hypocrisy, and to some "Do as I say - Not as I do." Not very good integrity from a person I would ask to be my President.

hreply to post by hellobruce

How about you prove Obama's SSN is recycled....

That's kind of what this thread is about, forcing the SSA to release that information, including the original application and assignment of that number.

That same number was on the documents, previously unredacted, for Obama's Selective Service application, but has since been redacted. It is discussed in old threads here, if you choose to find it.

That same number was on his accidentally unredacted tax forms previously posted at Whitehouse.gov, according to the case documents.

That same number was searched for, and found, belonging to the name contained in the title of this thread, at the SSA.

That same number failed E-verify, as well as other government searches, to return Obama's identity. When it did return his identity, it failed to verify him as a citizen. Screenshots have been posted in this thread already.

You are free to perform your own searches about the SS#, there is no shortage of screenshots available on the internet 'birther' sites.

Also, your representation about SS#'s not being assigned by the state you live in is REALLY misleading. Your zip code not only represents your state, but which part of the state you are from.

That is a recent change, and previously, YES, numbers were assigned by where you lived.

From the SSA website:

The Social Security Administration (SSA)
changed the way Social Security Numbers
(SSNs) are issued on June 25, 2011. This
change is referred to as "randomization." The
SSA developed this new method to help
protect the integrity of the SSN. SSN
Randomization will also extend the longevity
of the nine-digit SSN nationwide.

The SSA began assigning the nine-digit SSN
in 1936 for the purpose of tracking workers'
earnings over the course of their lifetimes to
pay benefits. Since its inception, the SSN has
always been comprised of the three-digit area
number, followed by the two-digit group
number, and ending with the four-digit serial
number. Since 1972, the SSA has issued
Social Security cards centrally and the area
number reflected the state, as determined by
the ZIP code in the mailing address of the
application.

www.ssa.gov...

VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

But are you not really willing to entertain the idea? How far do you believe the corruption of our government exists Wrabbit? If the Banking institutions can buy PRESIDENTS; don't you think they could throw a measly 50k a State registrar, and select few relevant people to forge official documents?

I'm sure you're aware of my position as we've been in these debates before. I do not believe Barack Obama is hiding anything whatsoever to do with his place of birth or citizenship. Absolutely nothing. There is literally nothing left TO hide after 6 years of people hounding this story across 3 nations around the world.

2010 saw a document dump of the Government records of all types going back into the 1960's. They didn't make a big deal of it. They didn't 'force' it into the public awareness like they DO with so much else. They released it all...probably said some nice words (I was dealing with a traumatic death close to me at that time and don't clearly remember big parts of early 2010). They've then let it sit there.

Since then, they've allowed this issue to play. Knowing they could correct it by simply drawing public attention to what they put into the public record themselves ...but quite happy to watch America divide and fight all the more over a non-issue.

I'm very VERY happy to help document and substantiate everything I say on this topic though. Anxious to...honestly. It's been a few months since I've throw some hours into this topic.

reply to post by hellobruce


Now that you've gotten to the very bottom of this conspiracy, I'm sure we won't be hearing from you in this thread any more.

I mean, you've rapped it all up haven't you? No point in drilling the same points in over and over.

Especially since your final definitive answer to the whole thing is: "It's because he's black."

Must have run out of talking points to wind up at "It's because he's black"

VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I'm like.... 10 cases in and all of those judges have high political ties to the Bill Clinton administration and others of sketchiness.... Tell me something, and I'd like for you to consider it very, very carefully...

Who's set of facts do you have, hmm?

Hey, outstanding.. I appreciate you seeing that!

Please do me a favor and by name of Judge, can you give examples of how each one is linked back to the Clinton Administration beyond the source of their appointment to serve on the bench? May as well dig right in....but we need to support our facts or this isn't much of a debate but just a competition of pure opinion.

Who's set of facts do you have, hmm?

Kind of a silly question there, isn't it? I'm working off the facts as they sit inside Court houses across our nation today. I'm going by facts established in open court testimony in cases like Georgia, where they most certainly did get into a full evidentiary hearing and testimony from several key players in all this.

In short, my facts come from the official public record which anyone can independently verify and explore. What source is yours coming from, specifically?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

beyond the source of their appointment to serve on the bench?

Obviously you don't understand the importance of such a thing, or is this some kind of joke?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

What source is yours coming from, specifically?

Not a corrupted government and it's paid off officials; I can say that much...

Libertygal
That same number was on the documents, previously unredacted, for Obama's Selective Service application, but has since been redacted. It is discussed in old threads here, if you choose to find it.

That same number was on his accidentally unredacted tax forms previously posted at Whitehouse.gov, according to the case documents.

Well, that was Obama's SSN, so of course it was on is documents...

That same number was searched for, and found, belonging to the name contained in the title of this thread, at the SSA.

Wrong actually, care to provide a source for that claim....

That same number failed E-verify,

As has been explained here before, that is because obama now has a new SSN

Also, your representation about SS#'s not being assigned by the state you live in is REALLY misleading.

no, I quoted from the SSN admin site - here it is once again, as you apparently missed it.
www.ssa.gov...

Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.

Did you see that bit? here it is again It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information Do you understand that now

There is also this letter from Social Security Administration to Investigator Susan Daniels,

Dear Ms. Daniels:
This letter is in response to your letter to Commissioner Astrue concerning President Obama's Social Security Records. After reviewing the information you provided, we disagree with your conclusion that a person's Social Security number depends upon the address of residence. Furthermore, we do not have information related to your question regarding the numbering of Selective Service forms. Please direct questions regarding a Selective Service form (SSS form 3B) to the Selective Service System. Sincerely, /s/ Frank Biro Acting Associate Commissioner Office of Public Inquiries

www.scribd.com...

Your zip code not only represents your state, but which part of the state you are from.

What does a zip code have to do with a SSN??? You seem to have confused them.

reply to post by hellobruce

Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.

The completely sad thing is this quote doesn't nearly mean what you are inferring it does....

VeritasAequitas
The completely sad thing is this quote doesn't nearly mean what you are inferring it does....

yes it does - confirmed by the letter to Susan Daniels from SSN admin..

reply to post by Miniscuzz

As far as I know, only very extremist 'bithers' still cling to the Inodnesian thing, which, btw, was started by a Democrat lawyer.

Most people, doing serious research on the matter, more question the British aspect, and the fact that the mother was not a US Citizen legally, for four years when she gave birth. She was under legal age of 18, and therefore, could not, by the law at the time, pass citizenship as a woman married to a non-citizen, to a baby. She would have to have been 22 when Obama was born.

Some people point to the 14th ammendment, stating it overrides this question, but some do not believe that is the case.

Obama did retain British cirizenship, from his father, at the time of his birth, as Indonesia was a British Colony. He even said as much on Whitehouse.gov, in response to questions about his birt. That has since been removed, but screenshots are on the internet if you search.

The question then comes down to naturally born citizen, citizen, and naturalized citizen. This is where most of the serious attorneys have had there legal arguments regarding the Constitutional intent of the forefathers, and the interpretation of the meaning of 'naturally born'.

There is no argument that Obama is a citizen. The technicality lies in, is he a naturally born citizen, and this is where most people get confused.

Obama himself signed off on a document legitimizing the birth of McCain as a naturally born citizen, as he was born to "parentS" (plural) that were US Citizens.

And, therein lies the rub. The plural, parents, as in two.

The forefathers themselves held themselves outside of this Constitutional requirement, because as the founders of this country, they had no choice. Otherwise, none if them could be eligible for presidency.

The issue has become terribly clouded with all the side crap, such as the SSN, but, if people are honest, there are legitimate questions surrounding it. Just as with any issue, you will have extremists, but the 'Naturally Born' issue remains a thorn in the sides of a lot of people, people that consider the issue as yet, unsettled.

If, and when, if ever, the Supreme Court decides to attempt to pass down any decision, not just about Obama, but about the definition and true meaning of 'Naturally Born', leaving no unanswered doubts, this issue will live on.

Until then, people with these questions will consider Obama a citizen, but not 'Naturally Born', in this issue.

VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

beyond the source of their appointment to serve on the bench?

Obviously you don't understand the importance of such a thing, or is this some kind of joke?

I'll have a debate with you on this today. I'll even spend a good part of my day dedicated to this specific thread and topic. I feel that strongly about the accurate record of facts, as I've come to understand them, being presented properly and fairly next to 6+ years of re-run accusations.

However.. We need to agree at the start here..we aren't going into this personal hacking away at each other. If it's personal we're to be, I'll save my time and focus my day elsewhere. Just as well we figure that out at the open before hours are put into this, either way.

hellobruce

spirit_horse
when the Harvard Law Review wrote he was born in Kenya, Africa in a publication.

Oh dear, some more nonsense a birther made up - of course you can show us all exactly where the Harvard Law Review stated Obama was born in Kenya.... no, I didn't think you could!

Star for you. Reason doesn't work on birthers but if you said you have proof he was born in Kenya by a local chief or selectman they would copy it and spread it faster than chicken pox at a preschool.