Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery but disregards “image” as Indication of Obama’s Ineligibility Dama

Originally posted by Bakatono
Oh, I don't know,

Exactly, he has not used it for that purpose

Uh, the one in the OP,

Except that is not a fake, that is the reason this thread was moved to HOAX...

how is this a lie?

Because he has not spent millions in covering up his documents.... and remember, one of his lawyers working on the silly birther cases is working pro bono...

The fact of the matter is that he has spent millions on lawyers, these lawyers are in court to ensure his documents are kept on lock-down

Wrong again.... just what do his lawyers have to do to keep private documents private.... - your similiar records are not available to anyone, that doesnt mean you have spent millions.... or have you?
www.politifact.com...

www.outsidethebeltway.com...

I can't get a passport or a DL, join the military, do hardly anything without a hard copy, certified to be true, notarized and stamped birth certificate. How is it that we accept this nonsense when it comes to the president.

Except of course Obama has a certified copy of his birth certificate, as shown in 2008

In the USA, you are not on trial, just your name. Without lawyers, there are no cases. People do not represent themselves anymore, but their money and their court puppets do.

In this tactic, from the attorney's face, it's a psi-ops with the images. She looks like a babysitter, says original poster? Well that's the idea, to be underestimated by the crowd, sneak under suspicions. This one has all the paperwork and age requirements to make this a very long trial. Even 20 years; she is another disposeable face in the political race, if things don't work well. She may be a temp, and the trial may switch multiple attorneys, depending on the news.

I knew a guy who told me he would pick female attorneys for representing him instead of males, because if a woman could tolerate his character and work with him, so could the court. It softens the blame, because typically people are more polite in front of women than men. Lawyers are another species, so it may not be true in politics, but I hear it works well in divorce court. Out of superficialities...

Obama is a stage name, like Lady GaGa is a stage name. The character Obama has a great history. The real acting man does not have the legal requirements. The America that is now led by the media Industry puts celebrities in for hire. Designer leaders, complete with birth certificate props to complement the phony websites and the staged events. The cars are fake, the smiles are fake, the help is paid for not earned or deserved. The political machine gave up on real people with the invention of the TV set. He's a professional actor for corporate America, to fit the image but have only as much substance as you believe he has.

So in law, if the name "OBAMA" is on the legal papers, the character will be on trial. The character is clean. A real phony, not a fake one.

Originally posted by oghamxx
reply to post by mudbeed

 

Thank you, fact is I am smart, damn smart.

My Latin is a legal maxim, nothing political.

No, I do not recall, so please refresh me memory with links to valid challenges before and or after he was placed on a ballot and the outcome of any and all subsequent judicial proceedings.

Smart eh? Spelling and punctuation aside I suppose. Perhaps they are not important in Latin?

Besides, your request is silly. Have you no ability to use Google all by yourself? There are lots of articles of challenges to his eligibility. "Validity" of those challenges is, well, challenging. You see, if I cannot prove that I have been personally injured by there being an usurper in the WH, I do not have standing to challenge the usurper's ability to usurp. So, the courts have not ever said he has a valid claim to the WH, they have only said that the plantiffs have no valid claim of injury so they cannot pursue it in court. It is procedural hogwash. The facts of the case haven't actually been tried.

Originally posted by AuranVector
Worth reading.

not really - it has been posted and shown to be false in this thread at least twice already....

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by xuenchen
And indeed you concede that Mr. Obama has not produced an alleged birth certificate to the Secretary of State.

How many previous Presidents have given copies of their birth certificates to every secretary of state? Or even been asked for them?

I don't know of any other US President born to a foreign national father who remained a foreign national.

I don't know of any other US President born illegitimate either. Obama Sr. already had a wife in Kenya when he illegally married Stanley Dunham -- making his marriage to Obama's mother void. Bigamy is illegal in the US.

Barry has been proven to be a banker puppet. PERIOD! We can all write whatever we want but the hungry trolls will pick it apart and set a up the cop out straw-man of racism. Judging by the FRUITS alone, race has ZERO to do with why this man must be ran out of DC. Not once will you trolls comment on the fruits of this administration, because you know if you did you will be hung out with the other treasonous liars. I do NOT blame Barry for everything but I do feel that he knew he was a fraud from the get go, he knew he would be a pawn for our Liberty and yet he still went along with selling us out. I do not know if his family has been threatened to keep him in line and forward the agenda ...(cough...Agenda21) but he has struck out with the people and MUST GO NOW! If the BC does it then so be it, but there are other reasons to IMPEACH him. PLEASE TELL me Spoor, what has this man done for us? Please tell me why bankers run his admin! Do you not think that we are at the cliff and it is either him or us. Did you not read that the Gov just bought millions of rounds of ammunition? Do you really support the TSA? Do you really support the Fractional Reserve Banking scam and the FED? I promise you, after this "Great Awakening" that is coming, even the trolls will be held accountable for not allowing us to move forward as a whole and always misleading the ignorant. STOP WITH THE RACIST CRAP. !
PLEASE TELL ME HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT BARRY'S JOB SO FAR AS POTUS! That will really shine the light on your stubborn "birther" hatred. Because I feel that if there is any inkling of a reason to believe that someone in the gov is a fraud then we MUST investigate to the end because ATS'ers know there isn't anyone on the inside that is standing up for us anymore. We are on our own! WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON? You keep tickeling Barry's fruits any longer and we will soon know, because it comes down to good/evil not race!
WHERE IS YOUR LINE IN THE SAND?

reply to post by Kr0nZ


www.art2superpac.com...

John Jay (December 12, 1745 – May 17, 1829) was an American politician, statesman, revolutionary, diplomat, a Founding Father of the United States, and the first Chief Justice of the United States (1789–95).

Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law. B

Sorry posted it twice forgot link on one....you should also read my other post...the 14th amendment has been purposely mis interpreted in order for these puppets to be put in office.

2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted 9 July 1868: 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. The intent and purpose of the (14th) amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens.

It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens.

Originally posted by AuranVector
I don't know of any other US President born to a foreign national father who remained a foreign national.

Chester A. Arthur

I believe it to be a misrepresentation of the actual hearing. I won't bother to check though, here's the hearing available for those who invest their time in the issue:
www.thefogbow.com...

According to some comments on the site what was said was that it there was no proof it was from their site only allegedly, and since it is not a certifiable copy of the document the whole hearing is moot. And there was no requirement for Obama to produce a certificate in the first place.

I confirmed the long form be edited myself by downloading it from whitehouse.gov when it was still available. I work in the field of IT and am not an expert on graphic design, but know enough to state that there is no way a scanned document produces layers in illustrator by itself. If the document indeed was changed in any way or manner, even by an application that interprets text in scanned documents, the document is void. That is the nature of the document. Need no additional reason. The white house at the very least uploaded a void certificate.

I believe it to be a forgery in an attempt to assure everybody of his electability, gone wrong. I believe that TPTB have his real birth certificate and are blackmailing him to be their puppet and do their every bidding, his punishment if it ever turned up and were confirmed to be real would be severe. Anyways that's my take on it..

I don't expect anything to come of the issue though which is why I will not invest any more time on it. Gl & hf.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Bakatono
Oh, I don't know,

Exactly, he has not used it for that purpose

Nice edit of the actual text in my post to make it appear as if I said something else. you wouldn't happen to work for NBC would you? Do any interesting 911 call editing perhaps?

Here is the original text:

Just where do you think Obama has used it for evidence of eligibility? Link?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps here? Whitehouse website

You see, it is really kind of funny. You asked where he was using his birth certificate as evidence off eligibility and I gave you the link to it on Whitehouse.gov. You then took the link out and left the rest of the sentence in, out of context, and made it look as if I was saying I didn't know where he was using it as evidence. So, I am putting it back in to provide that evidence again, and also evidence that you are a troll and a bit of a tool. You see how it is funny right? How you tried, and failed? ::

how is this a lie?

Because he has not spent millions in covering up his documents.... and remember, one of his lawyers working on the silly birther cases is working pro bono...

The fact of the matter is that he has spent millions on lawyers, these lawyers are in court to ensure his documents are kept on lock-down

Wrong again....

Not actually, he has spent millions on lawyers. I could google that for you, or you can go to google yourself and just type in "obama lawyers spent", or something to that affect.

The links you provided are not necessarily relevant. I never sourced Donald Trump. I could see how you may have mistakenly inferred that I meant he has spent millions just protecting his BC. My apologies. Please allow me to clear that up. He has spent millions to protect his BC, as well as everything else in his history include college information and so forth. We know very little about this man that he hasn't deemed us worthy to know. And what he does deem us worthy to know is suspicious.

The whole, "it is his and it is private", argument is also facetious. He is holding the highest public office in the land. Public. Office. I have held a public position before. Know what? I had to produce lots of documentation. And no, I didn't spend one penny to prevent me from having to produce it.

I can't get a passport or a DL, join the military, do hardly anything without a hard copy, certified to be true, notarized and stamped birth certificate. How is it that we accept this nonsense when it comes to the president.

Except of course Obama has a certified copy of his birth certificate, as shown in 2008

You mean that certificate of live birth? Heh, I have those for my kids. They were born overseas. The certificate merely says they were born and are alive. Nice try though, your attempt at dragging up this old argument is a good try at derailing, but your camp lost this one about 11 months ago when Obama released his fake BC on the whitehouse website. Let me get that link for you again.

Whitehouse website

Doublepost,

Three different types of citizens...Obama is Native not natural born...they should have put an American father on his BC when they were "fixing" it.


From the INS:

Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides: “The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien…” (Emphasis added.) Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides: “(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it. The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.” (Emphasis added.) And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides: “The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.” (Emphasis added.)

www.uscis.gov...

Another reason for possible "fixing" of the bc...the 14th amendment does NOT confer Natural Born Status to children born abroad of US parents,

In Rogers. v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that persons born abroad are not covered by the 14th Amendment, and therefore, their citizenship can be stripped from them by Congress, whereas Congress cannot strip citizenship from a 14th Amendment citizen, whether born or naturalized here: “Mr. Justice Gray has observed that the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was “declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law,” so far as the qualifications of being born in the United States, being naturalized in the United States, and being subject to its jurisdiction are concerned. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S., at 688 . Then follows a most significant sentence: ”But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”

[url]http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/[/url ]

The INS includes the following explanation of Interpretations: “Interpretations were created to supplement and clarify the provisions of the statute and regulations as interpreted by the courts. These materials usually are not included in the regulations because they deal generally with procedural matters and do not deal directly with application and benefit requirements. They are still a useful tool to help you understand how the DHS Bureaus performs their different immigration services and enforcement functions. Users of the Operation Instructions and Interpretations should always consult the relevant regulations and manuals in conjunction with these materials. As the DHS Bureaus have grown, the trend has been towards inclusion of more materials in the regulations and field manuals, and the Operations Instructions and Interpretations have been updated less frequently.”

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by AuranVector
I don't know of any other US President born to a foreign national father who remained a foreign national.

Chester A. Arthur

@AuranVector

You see, Spoor likes to make the argument that if someone has done something illegal before it is OK now. I would assume that this is OK as long as it benefits his agenda.

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter who may have gotten away with it before.

Annnnnndddd, Spoor fails to point out that Arthur wasn't elected. He was VP and became president after the assassination of Garfield. Details Details.

(BTW: He shouldn't have been allowed to be VP either)

reply to post by timetothink


Give it a second, spoor will be along to call you a lair and tell you, you are wrong. Any second now...

3....2....1....

reply to post by AquaImage13


Racers, they are called racers.

They call their opponents truthers, birthers, teabaggers, ****ers. So, since they seem to have a fixation with race, they are racers. Have to use it as a noun for it to work but it works. It isn't enough to point out that they use race as a cop-out, they need to be categorized as they categorize others.

reply to post by spoor


It was in reply to you stating you cannot find birth certificates on line...

so cute when you play dumb and ignore your own comments.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by AuranVector
Worth reading.

not really - it has been posted and shown to be false in this thread at least twice already....

In your opinion.

I found it to be worth reading. Seems others did as well.

reply to post by Bakatono


The 'statute of limitation' in this issue applies to those who fail to exercise their right. They can not come back after the fact and claim injury/damages for their own failure. What specifically did Obama overtly do to usurp the office of POTUS?

The Constitution GIVES YOU RIGHTS!! It is up to YOU to exercise them. It does not, nor IMO should it, impose a penalty upon the POTUS for YOUR failure to act.

You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right may God help you cause the courts will not!

Any and all upcoming election challenges must be done on a timely basis. It's gonna be wild! I think the courts will blow all challenges away as a nuisance.

I myself do not like all this but 'it's the law'.

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by xuenchen
That poses the real question.

Who is Obama's "real" father.

Only a DNA test will show the truth.

Although IMO, the real father is an American.

So eligibility is moot.

I don't think that's the issue right now (although a VERY good question). It's WHERE he was BORN. Not who sired his soul.

Every presidency seems to get worse and worse.

Clinton - cheated with Lewinsky
Bush - lied about WMD
Obama - total fraud

What's next?....a non-human robotic president?

edit on 13-4-2012 by Human_Alien because: corrected: forged to fraud

I'd vote for a robotic Prez I could program to do what the people wanted

seriously, this is just more smoke and mirrors methinks, IF and i stress the IF this was true, every single media outlet would be jumping on it, as would Mitt Romney.. this is an election year and Obama is up for reelection.

reply to post by Bakatono


I cut and pasted the Latin legal maxim from Bouvier. If you see a problem with grammar I suggest that contact them. I have no schooling in Latin. I could possibly butcher that phrase in Spanish, German, French and Italian.

I fully agree that the facts have never been tried, due to lack of standing or wrong court or ?????.

Usurp, usurp, usurp!!!! What EXACTLY did Obama overtly do, before being placed on the ballot, before the vote and before being sworn in, which constitutes usurping the office???

Where is the Federal law which says anyone who usurps a public office shall be guilty of xxxx and face a penalty of yyyy?

Where is the federal law which says a candidate must 'prove', swear or affirm that he meets the Constitutional requirements to hold office?

The Constitution GIVES YOU RIGHTS and it is up to YOU to exercise them in a timely manner. If not, it's too late. I know of no TIMELY BC challenges and you, and others, are unwilling or unable to direct me to them. Someone said there was one in Oregon but it was thrown out or ruled against by a court. I was unable to locate it to see the exact charges and exact ruling. Was it a state or federal court? Case number?

You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right may God help you since the courts will not.

Should Obama be penalized for millions of people's FAILURE to exercise THEIR Constitutional right? Ballot commissions, voters, Chief justice. You all blew it.