Author Topic: Question for Beach (Read 3972 times)

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #50 on:** April 06, 2011, 12:42:59 PM »

Quote from: LurkerNoMore on April 06, 2011, 12:40:04 PM

Once again, you got totally shit on here in a thread. You have nothing to argue or support your previous arguments without contradicting yourself and boxing your little self into a corner that you can't get out of.

And you wonder why the board considers you delusional?

Hey lickyourass - where is the long form BC signed by a doc listing the place of birth signed by either a doc or official?

kcballer · « **Reply #51 on:** April 06, 2011, 12:44:15 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on April 06, 2011, 10:05:02 AM

It was issued by the state of Hawaii was it not? And you argue that it is fraudulent do you not? It is issued off records held by the state is it not? And if the COLB is fraudulent then aren't all the records used to create it thereby fraudulent? Including a LFBC?

Isn't that the logical conclusion to make 333? Yes or no.

Yes or no. Is the logical conclusion, any document from the State of Hawaii is fraudulent because all the records used to produce the COLB are fraudulent? Meaning any LFBC would be fraudulent anyway? Yes or No.

240 is Back · « **Reply #52 on:** April 06, 2011, 12:46:20 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 06, 2011, 10:23:10 AM

No! I think he is hiding seriously damaging info that would have resulted in him losing the primary and general election if it was divulged and we deserve to know one way or the other.

Why did mccain/palin keep quiet about it? They're in on it too?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #53 on:** April 06, 2011, 12:46:30 PM »

He cant show the long form BC because he knows it will contradict the bogus COLB they released.

Again - they listed the fathers' race as "african" yet that was not even an option in 1961 on the long form BC.

So again - where is the long form BC signed by a doc showing the place of birth and naming the doc?

LurkerNoMore · « **Reply #54 on:** April 06, 2011, 02:03:55 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 06, 2011, 12:42:59 PM

Hey lickyourass - where is the long form BC signed by a doc listing the place of birth signed by either a doc or official?

Who cares where it is? Taking the word of a state official over some little internet crybaby isn't a hard choice to make. Actually, it's pretty easy in fact.

It's like whenever I read one of your posts, I hear strange banjo music in the background.....

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #55 on:** April 06, 2011, 02:09:04 PM »

Quote from: LurkerNoMore on April 06, 2011, 02:03:55 PM

Who cares where it is? Taking the word of a state official over some little internet crybaby isn't a hard choice to make. Actually, it's pretty easy in fact.

It's like whenever I read one of your posts, I hear strange banjo music in the background.....

again - where is the long form BC sign by a doc or state official naming the doc or hospital?

kcballer · « **Reply #56 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:08:46 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on April 06, 2011, 12:44:15 PM

Yes or no. Is the logical conclusion, any document from the State of Hawaii is fraudulent because all the records used to produce the COLB are fraudulent? Meaning any LFBC would be fraudulent anyway? Yes or No.

Yes or no 333.

If the Hawaiian state officials are using fraudulent documents to create a COLB, would that not mean any LFBC is fraudulent as well? If one is not believable how can the other be?

Yes or no.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #57 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:14:28 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on April 06, 2011, 03:08:46 PM

Yes or no 333.

If the Hawaiian state officials are using fraudulent documents to create a COLB, would that not mean any LFBC is fraudulent as well? If one is not believable how can the other be?

Yes or no.

funny - cause the gov Hawaii says he cant find a BC, the guy Adams says he was told none exists, and the bezst they have said so far is that "notes on file" are what they have, which means nothing. No long form BC, no hospital records, nodoc records, nothing at all.

kcballer · « **Reply #58 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:19:02 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 06, 2011, 03:14:28 PM

funny - cause the gov Hawaii says he cant find a BC, the guy Adams says he was told none exists, and the bezst they have said so far is that "notes on file" are what they have, which means nothing. No long form BC, no hospital records, nodoc records, nothing at all.

Why do you lie and why do you dodge the question?

BTW notes on file includes LFBC

but guess what? They can't release it without consent. Gov of Hawaii never said he couldn't find it. NEVER. That is a lie. He said he could not proceed any further, meaning under Hawaiian privacy laws you can not request and show certain information without consent. Meaning he can not show Obama's LFBC without his consent.

They have it in the file. It's called 'notes' Or what? Did you think they had actual 'notes' like post its in his file saying 'born in hawaii'? Hahahaha what an idiot! this is classic watching you make a fool of yourself. Keep it up!

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #59 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:20:32 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on April 06, 2011, 03:19:02 PM

Why do you lie and why do you dodge the question?

BTW notes on file includes LFBC but guess what? They can't release it without consent. Gov of Hawaii never said he couldn't find it. NEVER. That is a lie. He said he could not proceed any further, meaning under Hawaiian privacy laws you can not request and show certain information without consent. Meaning he can not show Obama's LFBC without his consent.

They have it in the file. It's called 'notes' Or what? Did you think they had actual 'notes' like post its in his file saying 'born in hawaii'? Hahahaha what an idiot! this is classic watching you make a fool of yourself. Keep it up!

Thats utter bullshit. They never said there is a long form BC on record.

blacken700 · « **Reply #60 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:21:36 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on April 06, 2011, 03:19:02 PM

Why do you lie and why do you dodge the question?

BTW notes on file includes LFBC but guess what? They can't release it without consent. Gov of Hawaii never said he couldn't find it. NEVER. That is a lie. He said he could not proceed any further, meaning under Hawaiian privacy laws you can not request and show certain information without consent. Meaning he can not show Obama's LFBC without his consent.

They have it in the file. It's called 'notes' Or what? Did you think they had actual 'notes' like post its in his file saying 'born in hawaii'? Hahahaha what an idiot! this is classic watching you make a fool of yourself. Keep it up!

just curious, what is your occupation

kcballer · « **Reply #61 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:24:11 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 06, 2011, 03:20:32 PM

Thats utter bullshit. They never said there is a long form BC on record.

Prove it. They said they have notes in the file. Notes meaning LFBC. Prove it's not.

Go on.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #62 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:30:23 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on April 06, 2011, 03:24:11 PM

Prove it. They said they have notes in the file. Notes meaning LFBC. Prove it's not.

Go on.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47512486/Sworn-Affidavit-by-Tim-Adams-No-Hawaii-Hospital-Generated-Long-Form-Birth-Cert-Exists-for-Obama

kcballer · « **Reply #63 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:32:59 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 06, 2011, 03:30:23 PM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47512486/Sworn-Affidavit-by-Tim-Adams-No-Hawaii-Hospital-Generated-Long-Form-Birth-Cert-Exists-for-Obama

A former clerk swore it was not it there. Yet the State of Hawaii says that it is. That the "notes" are sufficient to certify he was born in Hawaii. What would those notes be? Hmmm you think they just made some up? Or you think they have a record of a Birth in one of their hospitals as those notes?

Who am i going to believe. One guy, who is likely doing this for attention, or a whole State....

kcballer · « **Reply #64 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:34:01 PM »

333 just curious.

Exactly how many cases have been successful in proving or requesting this LFBC?

I mean a clerk has sworn it doesn't exist. Shouldn't this be a cut and dry case for you, a lawyer?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #65 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:35:45 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on April 06, 2011, 03:34:01 PM

333 just curious.

Exactly how many cases have been successful in proving or requesting this LFBC?

I mean a clerk has sworn it doesn't exist. Shouldn't this be a cut and dry case for you, a lawyer?

Cases have been dismissed on the "standing" issue, but never on the merits of the action itself. That is a techincal legal issue far above your comprehension. Ask GW to explain it to you.

kcballer · « **Reply #66 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:40:13 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 06, 2011, 03:35:45 PM

Cases have been dismissed on the "standing" issue, but never on the merits of the action itself. That is a techincal legal issue far above your comprehension. Ask GW to explain it to you.

So that's a no?

Not one case in any court in this country has found in favor of anyone on this issue? Even with this sworn affidavit that you so proudly proclaim as the key evidence? Not one judge? Not even in a red state? Wow. I thought everyone hated Obama, perhaps one of those Louisiana judges? No? Texas? No? Not one?

I'm sorry how many?

Zero?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #67 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:41:12 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on April 06, 2011, 03:40:13 PM

So that's a no?

Not one case in any court in this country has found in favor of anyone on this issue? Even with this sworn affidavit that you so proudly proclaim as the key evidence? Not one judge? Not even in a red state? Wow. I thought everyone hated Obama, perhaps one of those Louisiana judges? No? Texas? No? Not one?

I'm sorry how many?

Zero?

like I said - its a techincal legal issue far above your comprehension. ask GW to explain it to you.

OzmO · « **Reply #68 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:42:38 PM »

Sounds like another deflection from 33333 veiled in an insult.

kcballer · « **Reply #69 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:43:18 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 06, 2011, 03:41:12 PM

like I said - its a techincal legal issue far above your comprehension. ask GW to explain it to you.

how many cases?

I thought this was easy to prove. You have a former clerk saying so, swearing to it. Just produce that as evidence right? Then BAM this whole CT gets unraveled.

Surely you can take it on right? You must know some Obama hating judges.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #70 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:45:07 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on April 06, 2011, 03:42:38 PM

Sounds like another deflection from 33333 veiled in an insult.

Its not an insult - but a techinical legal issue i really don't have the patience to explain to you. I'll send GW a pm to educate you.

kcballer · « **Reply #71 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:46:56 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 06, 2011, 03:45:07 PM

Its not an insult - but a techinical legal issue i really don't have the patience to explain to you. I'll send GW a pm to educate you.

I don't care about the technicality. Surely a country with such vast legal resources can overcome a technicality or has Obama stolen all the best players for his team? Leaving us with 333 and GW to fight to good old fight?

Is this all about not being picked by team Obama?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #72 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:48:19 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on April 06, 2011, 03:46:56 PM

I don't care about the technicality. Surely a country with such vast legal resources can overcome a technicality or has Obama stolen all the best players for his team? Leaving us with 333 and GW to fight to good old fight?

Is this all about not being picked by team Obama?

No - like I said - the issue of "standing" is very complex and far beyond your comprehension or understanding.

OzmO · « **Reply #73 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:58:03 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on April 06, 2011, 03:45:07 PM

Its not an insult - but a techinical legal issue i really don't have the patience to explain to you. I'll send GW a pm to educate you.

Are you lost?

I am not asking it to be explained, KC is.

And it was an insult to KC.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #74 on:** April 06, 2011, 03:59:41 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on April 06, 2011, 03:58:03 PM

Are you lost?

I am not asking it to be explained, KC is.

And it was an insult to KC.

It was a fact and statement based upon his demonstrated ignorance as to the litigation that has been filed in this matter thus far. If that qualifies as an insult, fine.