Why Obama Does Not Have A Birth Certificate

I claim post number 200!

YAY ME!

dp

reply to post by flyswatter

Ok, so going with your line of thinking there ... if one is to believe that you are correct, how could it even be possible that this situation would be remedied? If lawyers are useless in this situation, and the courts are useless in this situation, what method of recourse could you possibly have?

That is the question at hand.

What recourse do we have under law for this situation?

Some people claim that by signing your drivers license "without prejudice" then you are not signing away your the God given rights associated with being a state citizen.

Legal meaning of without prejudice-

Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges.

When a lawsuit is dismissed, the court may enter a judgment against the plaintiff with or without prejudice. When a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice, it signifies that none of the rights or privileges of the individual involved are considered to be lost or waived. The same holds true when an admission is made or when a motion is denied without prejudice.

link to source

This is where the freeman argument might be bordering on myth.

I do no know the answer to the idea of signing a contract without prejudice.

It seems as if we can do this by acknowledging that we are signing the drivers license contract under duress and by signing the contract we are agreeing to obey the states driving codes in order to assume the privilege of driving. (that is because a contract signed under duress is an adhesion contract... legal definition in a second)
And we assume this privilege under the legal personality of the artificial person.

When signing without prejudice, it would seem that we are admitting ourselves into the contract, but we are not relinquishing State Citizen God given rights.

This is the freeman argument.

Now your quote

... how could it even be possible that this situation would be remedied?

I am trying to figure this out.
The only stories that I have heard are anecdotal.
Most people who use the freeman defense are only successful when they demand that the court proceedings be put on record by a court reporter.
This is the point in which the freeman defense will either work or it will not.

Because we are in an admiralty court, the judge can rule however they wish.
The courts are like persons by the way.
They can hold jurisdictions in several different types of courts simultaneously.

Lawyers are not useless.
Their job is to find remedy under the color of the law.
But to be honest with you, I am getting into way too many different topics here.

My point is that an attorney has a purpose.
His purpose is to walk the client through the process correctly.
His job is not to protect his client.
That is PR.
If his job was to protect his client from the court then he would help his client find sanctuary in another country.

The attorney is meant to help access all that the court affords to his client.
And the attorney does this at the pleasure of the court.
These are all legal phrases that have a specific meaning and they date back to ROMAN LAW.

Yes. Roman law is the basis for all modern law.

Common law is partially respected in structure, but not in rulings.

The rulings were done away with in 1934 with the Erie case.

I am all over the place, but I am all over the place on purpose.

I am trying to exemplify why statutory law is so confusing.
It has become like a spider's web full of adhesion contracts that ensnare us and then we can't escape.
I am looking for remedy.
But the confusion that caused this situation grows triple fold when looking for a way out.

Oh yeah... I promised you guys this.

Legal meaning of adhesion contract-

n. a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained.

link to source

Now that I think of it, our common law is much like a blend of roman civil and old english common.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Did anybody watch that video? I was wondering the thoughts now or what refutation may be offered in response.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


I won't report you.

Any comments referring to 'Kenya' will simply be ignored.

Not because I feel I derailed the read; I was providing an alternative explanation to why Obama would use a forgery instead the 'Kenya' situation. That was still relevant to the topic of Arpaio's findings. However, Kenya has no part in this discussion. I do NOT believe he was born in Kenya. Possibly, however I think the real reason he is playing around is for the same reason I'm talking about. He was born in Hawaii, but due to what a Birth Certificate makes you, of course he would not have one. Believe what you want; My words are as clear as I mean them.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Read the

Without any loss or waiver of rights or privileges. When a lawsuit is dismissed, the court may enter a judgment against the plaintiff with or without prejudice. When a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice, it signifies that none of the rights or privileges of the individual involved are considered to be lost or waived. The same holds true when an admission is made or when a motion is denied without prejudice.

When you go to court and you submit yourself to the judge and say "Yes, I understand my charges." you have given them the power over you to proceed with trial. If you say "I reserve all rights under UCC 1-308 and UCC 1-207, without prejudice." They can not unknowingly force you to waive those State Citizen rights by "understanding" the charges. When you waive your state citizen rights, they can charge you under statutory/admiralty jurisdiction due to federal citizenship. However, if you keep your State Citizen rights, they must produce a damaged party that was the outcome of your 'indiscretion', due to common law, and not statutory.

Here is more on this.

truthpills.wordpress.com...

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


I have watched a lot of Jordan Maxwell.
He is spot on with some information and off on other stuff at times, but this video was money.

I know that you wanted to hear from the "debunkers", but they probably won't reply to you.
The video puts them into their place.

These guys have been schooled and they just won't admit it.

I am very grateful to you for bringing this up because it has forced me to learn a lot of very interesting things that I had not yet known.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


As far as taking control of the birth certificate fund, it is considered a frivolous lawsuit, only because the people trying to enact it are debtors and not creditors. You have to fill out the UCC financing statement in order to take control of it because currently it is in the possession of the daddy government.

As set forth by certain definitions in the UNITED STATES CODE, Constitution, IRS CODE, etc; we have been tricked into admitting that we are someone we are not. The USCODE, at 8 USC and at 26 USC, if i recall correctly, define the "UNITED STATES" (the corporation/government entity) as "INCLUDES the District of Columbia, and federal territories and possessions." now, "includes" is defined by the SCOTUS as EXCLUDING all but what is meant to be included...this means that since "states of the Union" are not "included", they are EXCLUDED by omission. this means that ONLY "residents" or "citizens" of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA are "U.S. Citizens". so when you claim to be a "U.S. Citizen", (i.e., by filing a federal tax return, etc.) you are admitting that you are a "federal employee" and are thereby subject to their jurisdiction. Knowing these definitions, it is clear that we, as "CONSTITUTIONAL (but not 'statutory') citizens of [the state you live in]", we are actually "'Foreign Nationals' with respect to the U.S. Government", because the states are not federal territory. they are FOREIGN to the District of Columbia, and therefore foreign to the UNITED STATES. So the premise is that since the 13th Amendment bans "involuntary servitude", that Social Security and the Income Tax and such MUST be voluntary, or amount to involuntary servitude, which is a federal felony UNLESS you consent. therefore, given that the terms (servitude thru financial manipulation) were not fully disclosed at the time of making contract (your birth, under parental consent), and since the act MUST be voluntary or be felonious, then we MUST be able to rescind those contracts. Destroying the strawman restores your status as an American sovereign. From what i gather, the basic process consists of: 1)rescinding your SSN, which you used under duress without full disclosure of the agreement, and for which, given your status as a "nonresident alien" , it is a crime for you to even APPLY, much less to get one and use it. (and a law that forces you to break any other law, is a law of no effect) 2)withdrawing consent to participate in the federal income tax, which is voluntary unless you are a federal employee. 3)void and nullify any contract entered into using the fraudulently issued/obtained SSN, i.e. a driver's license, etc.

You guys asked for the law about all caps, and it is defined in UCC.

The UCC 1 defines exactly who is the debtor and who is the creditor or secured party. Your name in all capital letters is the debtor and your name with initial capitals and the rest lower case letters, is you, the secured party.

www.cscglobal.com...

The debtor name on the financing statement is all capital letters, BUT correct names contain lower case letters.

Any further questions?

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Any further questions?

I have a question.

Why does your supposed "quote" say this:

The UCC 1 defines exactly who is the debtor and who is the creditor or secured party. Your name in all capital letters is the debtor and your name with initial capitals and the rest lower case letters, is you, the secured party.

When the document you linked says this:

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...

The actual document says that it doesn't really matter how it appears on the statement; upper case, lower case, punctuation, abbreviation...as long as it is clear who the party is. It says that trying to use "incorrect" capitalization or punctuation or abbreviation as a means of voiding the statement won't work.

Why did you misquote so blatantly? Nowhere does it say that the name of the secured party will be shown with lower case letters.

reply to post by Phage


www.sos.ca.gov...

If the debtor is a registered organization such as a corporation, limited partnership, or limited liability company, the legal name is the exact name under which it is organized. The best source of the correct name is to check the registration documents. A preliminary check of business names for California registered organizations may be obtained through the California Business Search. If the debtor is a general organization, such as a joint venture or other partnership, use the name contained in the formation documents or other organizational document.

If Birth Certificate registers a corporation as an all caps; the debtor recognized as such registered organization, their legal name is accepted as such: JOHN DOE SMITH.

Which is where they accept John Doe Smith as representing the same person.

Filers are responsible for determining and correctly providing the exact legal name of the debtor. The determination of the correct legal name depends on whether the debtor is an individual or an organization.

John Doe Smith would be recognized as the legal name of an individual and not a registered organization.

The Debtor name is the same as your all caps JOHN DOE SMITH, however correct names would be John Doe Smith. The reason close approximations are accepted is by going to court, you are representing that entity and assuming their debt. Which is also part of why they ask you to state your name for the court...

reply to post by Phage


That quote was from elsewhere. Don't misconstrue it to mean it was from that particular article as well.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

Why did you misquote what the document says?

It says that it doesn't really matter how it appears on the statement; upper case, lower case, punctuation, abbreviation...as long as it is clear who the party is. It says that trying to use "incorrect" capitalization or punctuation or abbreviation as a means of voiding the statement won't work.

It says that your argument is nonsense.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Then why did you provide that link?
Why did you not provide the correct link?

reply to post by Phage


And I just told you why.. Reread the last bit of my first comment to you.

reply to post by Phage


I did not realize it wasn't included in the post. However, if it would appease you here is the link.

www.naturallyprudent.com...

reply to post by Phage


That particular link went with the quote below it, not the one above.