Major Stefan Frederick Cook v [et. al] (RE: Obama eligibility - Dr. Taitz)

reply to post by whatukno

Yes I believe SHE can prove it. and we will just have to wait and see f they even let her in the court room.

If not the next 3.5 years are going to bring this country down to rags...

reply to post by JulieMills


They won't unless she has something factual.

And as of yet no one here has brought forth anything factual that Obama is ineligible for Office.

So when you guys get some actual factual evidence, please U2U me so I can see it. I would love to see some actual evidence that Obama wasn't born in the USA.

reply to post by whatukno


Honestly?
I don't think some of you would believe even if barry himself whispered it in your ear...you would make yourself believe that "he was just playan, good 'ol barry always playan' that guy.he's such a card.."

reply to post by JulieMills


Honestly Really Trully.

I want evidence, not speculation, not some blog, I want some real proof.

Otherwise it's all bull

and I don't care for male bovine fecal material.

Originally posted by whatukno

During the course of the work I have been doing in the past six months, regarding the activities and qualifications of Mr. Obama, I have kept a record of all of the addresses in regards to which I have seen the use of his name.

Source: www.orlytaitzesq.com...

So an anonymous poster on a blog claims to have seen all of these addresses and all the Obama-haters are gullible enough to believe this is some kind of smoking gun.

Even if he is telling the truth, the poster never claims it was the Barack Obama who is now president who used these names/addresses.

I've personally met 3 other people in Australia with my name, and we only have a population of twenty million, I expect there would be dozens in America, with a population of 600 million.

And there are always those who want to fake a name for illegal purposes, and on the spur of the mument choose the name of someone famous.

Let's Review:

the problem is not lack of evidence. evidence has never even been presented.

the problem is so far the court has refused to hear the case NOT because of the quality of or lack of evidence but the standing of the petitioner.

what and mental, i would think you both would be concerned that no citizen has the right to ask this question. it's not about whether this question has ever been asked before. that happens all the time, and courts render opinions. our justice system says its citizens have no right to ask a simple question about eligibility.

you can stop distracting from the issue with your talk about evidence and slamming the attorney involved. address the issue of WHO is allowed to ask this question? WHY won't the court hear and rule? the court could easily say the COLB is adequate, end of story. but they won't do that. why won't they do that? if there is no evidence it would be a simple case.

Originally posted by earlywatcher
Let's Review:

the problem is not lack of evidence. evidence has never even been presented.

the problem is so far the court has refused to hear the case NOT because of the quality of or lack of evidence

Yes many of the lawsuits were dismissed on the grounds of evidence. The lawsuits you reference as being dismissed on the grounds of the plaintiff were those that demanded the public release of Obamas long form birth certificate which ofcourse no individual other than Obama and his relatives themselves can request.

Now wheres that evidence that he was born off US soil?

it's not about whether this question has ever been asked before.

No this has all to do with the fact his short form birth certificate was confirmed as authentic and yet the birthers and opponents have marked it as fake, for their own personal reasons. In addition if the evidence you cite regarding Obamas ineligibility is all based upon the fact "he hasnt released a half a dozen other documents in his life" im afraid under the court of law this isnt sufficient evidence to prove his ineligibility.

you can stop distracting from the issue

Distracting from the issue? As far as I can see it critics of this conspiracy have been the only ones providing constitutional evidence thus far, none of you have countered the constitutional evidence presented so far. I have asked numerous times for the individuals promoting this conspiracy to counter the constantitutional evidence to the contrary, and thus far I have not seen any replies. The only folks here distracting the facts behind why these lawsuits go no where are the conspiracy pushers who refuse to address the evidence on the contrary.

right.

Originally posted by whatukno
Honestly Really Trully.

Have you heard of these?

"speculated to" "going to" "will be" "is going to"

The above are the center to many of these lawsuits that have come out in the past and one by one they have been dismissed. You cannot accuse somebody of something on the grounds of speculation, on the grounds that "he didnt release the documents I wanted". If the court of law worked in that manner we would be having alot of innoncent folks in jail today. Thank goodness our legal system is fair and just.

Many here are jumping on the bandwagon claiming the allegations as fact before this plaintiff even presents the actual evidence and as to why this proves Obamas ineligibility. Whats more funny, these folks complain that the short form isnt enough or a fake despite confirmation by the proper authorities including the state of Hawaiia, but they are willing to jump the gun and believe something not confirmed being posted on a blog. It doesnt make sense to me.

Nevertheless we live in a democracy and these individuals have every right to present what they consider evidence although sensing this lawsuit will be added to the pile of other dead ones. We'll just have to wait and see... again.

It was obvious from the campaign that Obama supported a large centrist government and was drawn to characters that favored large left leaning governments. McCain supported him, and McCain no longer had any fight left in him.

Obamas' qualifications and eligibility is still in question, at least I as a citizen doubt his qualifications and eligibility and I have serious concerns about his vision for the country which is towards an increasingly powerful central government. Regulations and government/tax everywhere is the opposite of liberty and freedom. Had a hostile country invaded our country I would imagine we'd have less liberty, power and taxes taken from us.

However the removal of Obama from office won't undo the election results or the $1.9 Trillion he's added to the debt this year. Biden would be worse, but if the election results are voided then Pelosi would be president, which is a far worse scenario for the country than if Obama remained in office. No one in the current presidential successorship line should be president. If Obama is removed from office, this is one situation where I hope the military temporarily assumes power until special elections are held.

Originally posted by earlywatcher
Let's Review:

the problem is not lack of evidence. evidence has never even been presented.

the problem is so far the court has refused to hear the case NOT because of the quality of or lack of evidence but the standing of the petitioner.

what and mental, i would think you both would be concerned that no citizen has the right to ask this question. it's not about whether this question has ever been asked before. that happens all the time, and courts render opinions. our justice system says its citizens have no right to ask a simple question about eligibility.

you can stop distracting from the issue with your talk about evidence and slamming the attorney involved. address the issue of WHO is allowed to ask this question? WHY won't the court hear and rule? the court could easily say the COLB is adequate, end of story. but they won't do that. why won't they do that? if there is no evidence it would be a simple case.

Well at least your laying it down in a logical manner here...
I do not have a problem with ANY legal inquiry upon ANYONE as long as it is not frivolous and used as a political weapon.

But with all due respect I think this entire case is just that, akin to "he's an, an, arab?". "he's a terrorist", "he's a muslim"

Maybe I have gotten this perception from all the Partisans who are pushing this and every other anti Obama piece available. Their presence alone gives this issue a familiar stench...

Originally posted by Dbriefed

Regulations and government/tax everywhere is the opposite of liberty and freedom. Had a hostile country invaded our country I would imagine we'd have less liberty, power and taxes taken from us.

However the removal of Obama from office won't undo the election results or the $1.9 Trillion he's added to the debt this year. Biden would be worse, but if the election results are voided then Pelosi would be president, which is a far worse scenario for the country than if Obama remained in office. No one in the current presidential successorship line should be president. If Obama is removed from office, this is one situation where I hope the military temporarily assumes power until special elections are held.

OK, first off... This is initial problem resulted by Government reducing "regulation",
which Allowed companies such as CITI BANK and TRAVELERS INSURANCE GROUP
merg = CITI - GROUP which then led them to insure their OWN holding based upon capital that did not exist. The creation of financial instrumentation so agregious and felonious was a result. These companies in turn wrote their own rules, created "money" and lent money based upon the books (and rules they created via GLB act of 1999) not actual capital.

So if I get it right, you would have them do this again?

Second where was all this talk of liberty and freedom when BUSH systematically undermined this very concept. Because all I saw was BLIND patriotism and an angry right rushing to enact the very opposite of liberty and freedom.

SO, where were many of you? I recall many of the same people crying about freedom now were acting as proxies for BUSH and his freedom striping campaign.

Finally you would have a military JUNTAESQUE take over? Seriously? Please tell me when a military take over has EVER promoted freedom and not resulted in tyrannical
power grabs?

Please feel free to explain...

Originally posted by Dbriefed
It was obvious from the campaign that Obama supported a large centrist government and was drawn to characters that favored large left leaning governments. McCain supported him, and McCain no longer had any fight left in him.

Obamas' qualifications and eligibility is still in question, at least I as a citizen doubt his qualifications and eligibility and I have serious concerns about his vision for the country which is towards an increasingly powerful central government. Regulations and government/tax everywhere is the opposite of liberty and freedom. Had a hostile country invaded our country I would imagine we'd have less liberty, power and taxes taken from us.

However the removal of Obama from office won't undo the election results or the $1.9 Trillion he's added to the debt this year. Biden would be worse, but if the election results are voided then Pelosi would be president, which is a far worse scenario for the country than if Obama remained in office. No one in the current presidential successorship line should be president. If Obama is removed from office, this is one situation where I hope the military temporarily assumes power until special elections are held.

Many of the largest banks, brokerages, and insurance companies desired the Act at the time. The justification was that individuals usually put more money into investments when the economy is doing well, but they put most of their money into savings accounts when the economy turns bad. With the new Act, they would be able to do both 'savings' and 'investment' at the same financial institution, which would be able to do well in both good and bad economic times.
Prior to the Act, most financial services companies were already offering both saving and investment opportunities to their customers. On the retail/consumer side, a bank called Norwest which would later merge with Wells Fargo Bank led the charge in offering all types of financial services products in 1986. American Express attempted to own almost every field of financial business (although there was little synergy among them). Things culminated in 1998 when Travelers, a financial services company with everything but a retail/commercial bank, bought out Citibank, creating the largest and the most profitable company in the world. The move was technically illegal and provided impetus for the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
Also prior to the passage of the Act, there were many relaxations to the Glass-Steagall Act. For example, a few years earlier, commercial Banks were allowed to get into investment banking, and before that banks were also allowed to get into stock and insurance brokerage. Insurance underwriting was the only main operation they weren't allowed to do, something rarely done by banks even after the passage of the Act.
Much consolidation occurred in the financial services industry since, but not at the scale some had expected. Retail banks, for example, do not tend to buy insurance underwriters, as they seek to engage in a more profitable business of insurance brokerage by selling products of other insurance companies. Other retail banks were slow to market investments and insurance products and package those products in a convincing way. Brokerage companies had a hard time getting into banking, because they do not have a large branch and backshop footprint. Banks have recently tended to buy other banks, such as the 2004 Bank of America and Fleet Boston merger, yet they have had less success integrating with investment and insurance companies. Many banks have expanded into investment banking, but have found it hard to package it with their banking services, without resorting to questionable tie-ins which caused scandals at Smith Barney.
[edit]Remaining restrictions

Crucial to the passing of this Act was an amendment made to the GLBA, stating that no merger may go ahead if any of the financial holding institutions, or affiliates thereof, received a "less than satisfactory [sic] rating at its most recent CRA exam", essentially meaning that any merger may only go ahead with the strict approval of the regulatory bodies responsible for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).[17] This was an issue of hot contention, and the Clinton Administration stressed that it "would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements." [18]
The GLBA also did not remove the restrictions on banks placed by the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 which prevented financial institutions from owning non-financial corporations. It conversely prohibits corporations outside of the banking or finance industry from entering retail and/or commercial banking. Many assume Wal-Mart's desire to convert its industrial bank to a commercial/retail bank ultimately drove the banking industry to back the GLBA restrictions.
Some restrictions remain to provide some amount of separation between the investment and commercial banking operations of a company. For example, licensed bankers must have separate business cards, e.g., "Personal Banker, Wells Fargo Bank" and "Investment Consultant, Wells Fargo Private Client Services". Much of the debate about financial privacy is specifically centered around allowing or preventing the banking, brokerage, and insurances divisions of a company....

Our mess and the deregulation you seek, power transfered from the the people house to the POWER HOUSE...

The middle ground is what makes America free

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 12-7-2009 by mental modulator]

reply to post by Dbriefed

If Obama is removed from office, this is one situation where I hope the military temporarily assumes power until special elections are held.

Oh good! Cause everyone knows how well a coup d'état would go over. Are you seriously advocating a coup d'état? Sorry man I would fight with my last breath before letting the military run this country.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by kozmo

 

Kozmo you accused my constitutional evidence as wrong in every sense yet you have not replied to it. If I am so wrong in this matter why do you seem to dodge what I presented earlier? Can you prove me wrong here?

Im waiting for that reply.

I already have - on several counts. You are apparently too dim to realize it. Sorry for you.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by xyankee
How much more evidence does there have to be?

What evidence? The constitutional arguments have been debunked thus far, all we have left here is the fact "he didnt release his long form and his college records", sure you may play your suspicions but that doesnt mean your accusations are true.

Until you come up with actual evidence that he was born off these United states your dead in the water and will continue to do so. You may get praise on fringe websites and Obama hating blogs but under the court of law, the the rest of the world you realy have nothing to show for it.

Man, you really are THAT dim!!! Do you read what you post or do your fingers just move faster than your brain???

How have the Constitutional arguments been debunked? He hasn't proven to be a natural born citizen and any and all methods for him to do so have been suppressed by him and his army of attorneys. Now, I recognize that you have been blinded by your adoration of Obama, but you would think that on occassion, regardless of how rare, some shred of logic might rise to the surface and give you pause... "Yeah, hey... how come he is paying all of these lawyers to suppress the only means to prove that he is, in fact, a natural born citizen???"

reply to post by kozmo

How have the Constitutional arguments been debunked? He hasn't proven to be a natural born citizen and any and all methods for him to do so have been suppressed by him and his army of attorneys. Now, I recognize that you have been blinded by your adoration of Obama, but you would think that on occassion, regardless of how rare, some shred of logic might rise to the surface and give you pause... "Yeah, hey... how come he is paying all of these lawyers to suppress the only means to prove that he is, in fact, a natural born citizen???"

No need to be insulting. The people that say that Obama is not a natural born citizen have yet to prove where he was born, have yet to prove anything. But they have made speculations and they have made accusations.

When you make an accusation especially one of this great a magnitude you have to provide proof to back up your claims. It is not the job of the defendant to prove their innocence, it is the job of the plaintiff to prove the defendants guilt.

That is the way the court system works. People that argue that Obama is not a natural born citizen have as of yet provided any real substantial proof of that accusation. The closest thing is a blog that may or may not be accurate. Without real proof there can be no litigation into the matter, no trial, and thus no conviction.

This illegal Obama theory is like a fuzzy UFO pic. It's exciting at first till the photograph expert takes it and shows everyone that it's a pie tin on a string.

Originally posted by andrewh7

OH MY GOD! Why did I get involved? I never said that newspaper announcements were, on their own, proof of being born in Hawaii. My point is that these announcements were printed in those papers on the day of his birth. If you are going to argue that he was not born in Hawaii and the birth certificate was forged than these birth annoucnements would necessarily have to have been lies as well since you are saying the information they convey is untrue. Understand?

Given that the copies of these newspapers are stored in the archives of University libraries all over the country, most likely in microfiche form, this would mean that a conspiracy began on the date of his birth to fraudulently claim he was born in Hawaii.

The purpose of this conspiracy would be to fulfill the eligibility requirements for the president of the United States, and the conspirators knew that in 2008, he would win the Democratic primaries and would be one of the final two candidates for President. So, these conspirators would either have to be time travelers, psychics, or acting with the intention to rig the primaries decades in the future.

Having the money and personnel to perpetrate this fraud involving both state and hospital records, they knew they could bend this baby to their will to carry out their secret plan.

MUHAHAHHAHAAH

Like I said, YOU are a wacko!

This has GOT to be one of the most entertaining posts so far. "I never said it was proof", then proceeding on to build an entire argument around it, using only the newspaper article as "proof".

Originally posted by whatukno
The people that say that Obama is not a natural born citizen have yet to prove where he was born, have yet to prove anything. But they have made speculations and they have made accusations.

When you make an accusation especially one of this great a magnitude you have to provide proof to back up your claims. It is not the job of the defendant to prove their innocence, it is the job of the plaintiff to prove the defendants guilt.

That is the way the court system works. People that argue that Obama is not a natural born citizen have as of yet provided any real substantial proof of that accusation. The closest thing is a blog that may or may not be accurate. Without real proof there can be no litigation into the matter, no trial, and thus no conviction.

This illegal Obama theory is like a fuzzy UFO pic. It's exciting at first till the photograph expert takes it and shows everyone that it's a pie tin on a string.

Sigh... Here is what you people can't seem to grasp. This is NOT a criminal trial where one needs to prove any one guilty. This is a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE where the burden of proof lies not with those requesting it, but with "the one" who must meet the Constitutional qualifications to hold the office. Do you get this yet!?!? Any of you!?!?!

Let me give you some simple examples... If I want a driver's license, I must do what????????????????????????? Anyone????????????????? NO? Ok, I must PROVE that I am who I say I am! How do I do so? I furnish a.... wait for it... wait for it... YES!!!! A BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!! YAY! You're catching on!

When I take a new job, the law says that I must be either a citizen of the United States or be authorized to work here. When I start my new job, I complete an I-9 form to ensure this. I can provide a number of different forms of ID, but there is only 1 that satisfies all of the requirements without having to show multiple IDs. Anyone know which form of ID it is?????????? Anyone??? Come on, this one is easy! It's............ your........... BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!!!!!!!

When my fiance and I got our Marriage License, we went to city hall and applied for it. Along with our application we had to prove that we were who we said we were and that we held citizenship. Can anyone guess what form of Identification in addition to our driver's licenses was required? Come ON you guys... we've been practicing this! It's your BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!!!!

Did any of you dim bulbs notice that the burden of proof was on ME to prove that I am who I claimed to be and to prove my citizenship??? Do you know why I had to prove it? Because statutorily I was required to meet certain criteria in order to be eligible. The office of President is no different! Just go read the Constitution!

My GOD!!! Now, all of you brainless Obama lovers can clearly see that the burden of proof is on HIM as he is required by the Articles of The Constitution to meet specific requirements in order to hold the office of President of The United States of America! It is NOT up to the people, for whom he works, to prove that he is ineligible. It is required, under Constitutional Law for the government to provide a redress of grievances to THE PEOPLE, ergo it is Constitutionally required that either the Courts, the Congress or BOTH uphold the Articles of the Constitution and do what is required to ensure that he is, in fact, Constitutionally eligible. There is only one way to know for certain. Can anyone guess what that might be???????????????????????????

HIS FREAKING BIRTH CERTIFICATE! Damn, people! I'm done here as it seems I can hardly muster a combined IQ of Obama supporters that would total room temperature!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by andrewh7

 

This is a legal matter. I'd just show the darn piece of paper and get it over and done with. If I was innocent of the charges there would be no problem.

I'd go one further - I'd file a counter suit, then produce the evidence of slander.

Obama has not, and has spent huge sums of money to sweep it under the rug. Speaks volumes to me.

Originally posted by andrewh7

This movement puts its best foot forward. They don't even know the name of the Vice President and yet they have uncovered a conspiracy that began with false birth announcements made in multiple newspapers in the 1960s. Dan Brown should write a book called the Obama Code. You people are a joke.

Now, the "newspaper" evidence that he "didn't claim was proof" has grown to encompass "multiple newspapers", and is spread in "archives all across the nation".

I have to assume that he still isn't claiming this for "proof", so I have to wonder why it's growing as it is...

This just gets betterer and betterer....