Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dr. Herb Titus, Esq., Barack Obama's Natural Born Citizen Status
Youtube ^ | 12/04/2011 | Dr Herb Titus

Posted on 12/05/2011 9:18:29 AM PST by GregNH

Herbert W. Titus is of counsel to the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C. Prior to his association with this firm, Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He is an active member of the bar of Virginia and an inactive member of the bar of Oregon. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the United States Court of Claims, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, District of Columbia and Federal Circuits. His constitutional practice has taken him into federal district courts in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia and the state courts of Idaho, Texas and North Dakota.

(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; naturalborncitizen; obama; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-115 next last
To: SvenMagnussen
It’s the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the United States.

Will assume the contents of your #49 are applicable to the timeline you set out upthread.

If O was indeed naturalized upon returning to the U.S., there should be i) documentation of that event or ii) a hole in the record.

Naturalization would have been due to one of two possibilities; he was not ever a U.S. citizen or his citizenship was previously renounced.

Even if there is no evidence of naturalization:
If Indonesia required formal renunciation of U.S. citizenship via a Certificate; and
If there are no such copies held by the several agencies you mentioned; then one can conclude
There was no citizenship to be renounced.

51 posted on 12/05/2011 2:54:55 PM PST by frog in a pot (I am not a birther...I am an NBCer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

LOL. Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. Great pictorial.


52 posted on 12/05/2011 3:36:34 PM PST by Moltke (Always retaliate first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Moltke

I kind of hated to stick those gifs on this thread but I seriously think that is 0bozo’s maturity level. He has demonstrated it on numerous occasions.


53 posted on 12/05/2011 3:48:24 PM PST by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

You’ve been posting this same crap, probably have it so you cut and paste, in every NBC thread. Put up or shut up.


54 posted on 12/05/2011 4:55:08 PM PST by GregNH (One Pissed Off Natural Born Citizen OPONBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
As I understand it, SSN’s in that time period were assigned in Baltimore (or some such location) based on the zip code of the applicant.

I never said BHO picked his own SSN, I meant to say that one possibility for BHO’s zip code being entered incorrectly is sloppy handwriting. But this is pure speculation.

I do not allege any conspiracy. I argue that conspiracy is required for this ‘multiple SSN’ stupidity to be true.

If you want to switch the topic to birth certificates, the same applies. For BHO’s birth info to be anything other than what is presented at face value by the short form and long form presented, a massive conspiracy is required.

55 posted on 12/05/2011 5:28:07 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
If you want to switch the topic to birth certificates, the same applies. For BHO’s birth info to be anything other than what is presented at face value by the short form and long form presented, a massive conspiracy is required.

I just don't think you comprehend my point. *I* have a birth certificate issued by the state which REPLACES my *ORIGINAL* birth certificate. My current legal birth certificate is NOT my *ORIGINAL* birth certificate!

If it is true for me, why can it not be true for Obama? There is plenty of evidence to indicate he was adopted. Also, when a state creates these replacement birth certificates, IT IS NOT A CONSPIRACY! It is the normal operation of the law regarding adoptions.

I am going to show Bushpilot1 (someone I trust) a small portion of my birth certificate, so that he can attest that I am not full of bull sh*t.

56 posted on 12/05/2011 5:40:11 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You're straying from the topic of SSN’s.

Regardless, I have not seen any evidence that BHO was legally adopted in the US by anyone. Just the usual Birther speculation and overactive imagination.

And if BHO was legally adopted in the US by someone other than his birth parents, that wouldn't change his place of birth nor his NBC status.

You don't agree? Well, that's perfectly all right.

57 posted on 12/05/2011 5:52:45 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
In other words, you don't know when or if the policy was actually changed and are simply guessing.

Produce the documentation that proves your assertion or stop making unsubstantiated claims.

58 posted on 12/05/2011 6:02:30 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
You're straying from the topic of SSN’s.

I'll get back to that later. In my opinion, this stuff is all variations on a theme. (Obama is a liar, and is surrounded by peculiarities.)

Regardless, I have not seen any evidence that BHO was legally adopted in the US by anyone. Just the usual Birther speculation and overactive imagination.

If you see some evidence would you just pooh pooh it, or would you start paying attention? I have long had an idea how some might be obtained, but i'm a little concerned about doing it myself. I should suggest the idea to butterzillion, she seems fearless.

And if BHO was legally adopted in the US by someone other than his birth parents, that wouldn't change his place of birth nor his NBC status.

And how do you know this? I can't get over the fact that Hawaii will issue birth certificates to people not actually born there! Given that Hawaii allows such a thing, How do you KNOW where he was born?

You don't agree? Well, that's perfectly all right.

I don't agree that we have conclusive proof of ANYTHING regarding barack. You on the other hand, want to accept something (from the lyingest man in the nation) as a matter of faith.

59 posted on 12/05/2011 6:08:25 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
I am suspicious of any lawyer who uses the honorific “Dr.” because he holds a juris doctor degree (the same degree that all lawyers get from law school). Lawyers don’t use that honorific.

But a professor on a faculty does, and deserves the honor. He's teaching law, not just practicing it. Before one is a lawyer, he/she is a student. Most lawyers are not teachers. Duh! Check out his curriculum vitae -- a bit more than a local divorce lawyer, eh?

60 posted on 12/05/2011 6:55:26 PM PST by imardmd1 ((Let the Redeemed of The LORD say so ...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

During L.Col. Lakin’s trial, his lawyer discovered that Barry Soetoro had an immigration file. A copy was requested to be used as evidence at trial. Request was denied, but it is now known that it is being held by Janet Napolitano (Homeland Security).

Note: natural born citizens do not have immigration files.

The information was on The Post & Email, if you care to search for it.


61 posted on 12/05/2011 10:52:40 PM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

1. I attended law school and am frequently at law schools, and I can ssure you that law professors do NOT use the honorific “Dr.” Nor is it applied to them by others. The title used is “Professor”.

2. Lawyers have a JD, which is the first degree a lawyer gets. It is a “doctorate”, but it is more on par with a Masters degree. The advanced degree some lawyers seek is an LLM, which is a “masters” degree, but it is more on par with a doctorate. That is the reason a JD is not usually referred to as “Dr.”

3. A law professor who allows (without correcting them) students or colleagues to call him “Dr.” is thought to be a pompous cad.

4. A lawyer who lectures undergrauate students (rather than graduate law students) is not really considered to be a real law professor. A “law professor” is a description best reserved for a full-time regular faculty at a law school. Any lawyer can teach a course as an adjunct at a law school or teach at the undergraduate level.


62 posted on 12/06/2011 3:27:41 AM PST by Notwithstanding (1998 ACU ratings: Newt=100%, Paul=88%, Santorum=84% [the last year all were in Congress])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: imardmd1

This lawyer does seem eminently qualified.

However his highest degree is a JD, and a JD who uses the title “Dr.” is a joke among his legal and academic peers.

Perhaps someone on the internet has applied the honoric “Dr.” to him without realizing it is inappropriate (if for no other reason than the poor form stands out and calls the information into question - at least among those familiar with law and academia).


63 posted on 12/06/2011 3:37:51 AM PST by Notwithstanding (1998 ACU ratings: Newt=100%, Paul=88%, Santorum=84% [the last year all were in Congress])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

“During L.Col. Lakin’s trial, his lawyer discovered that Barry Soetoro had an immigration file. A copy was requested to be used as evidence at trial. Request was denied, but it is now known that it is being held by Janet Napolitano (Homeland Security).”

Why are you still repeating this and claiming it’s true? I pointed out to you over a month ago that this is false. You even ADMITTED that the person you were talking about was Pamela Barnett, who is not an attorney, much less Lakin’s attorney.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2798516/posts?page=78#78

And since Barnett wasn’t his attorney, it couldn’t have been “requested to be used as evidence at trial.”


64 posted on 12/06/2011 7:35:59 AM PST by Vickery2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Vickery2010

During L.Col. Lakin’s trial, his lawyer discovered that Barry Soetoro had an immigration file. A copy was requested to be used as evidence at trial. Request was denied, but it is now known that it is being held by Janet Napolitano (Homeland Security).

Note: natural born citizens do not have immigration files.

The information was on The Post & Email, if you care to search for it.

_________________

Do you see Barnett’s name there - I don’t.


65 posted on 12/06/2011 7:50:24 AM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
"Do you see Barnett’s name there - I don’t."

That doesn't make it less false. Lakin's attorney never requested any immigration file.

And since you seem to have forgotten, let me refresh your memory:

SatinDoll: "Many folks do not know this: Barry Soetoro, aka Barak Obama, has an immigration file as an Indonesian refugee. The existance of this file was discovered by an attorney during the courts martial of a U.S. Army officer. Homeland Security refused to releas the file for the trial’s discovery."

Vickery2010: "Wow. Virtually NONE of that is even remotely true. Did you make that up yourself, or did you just hear another Birther say it?"

SatinDoll: "The source is Susan Barnett, an attorney for the Army officer."

Vickery2010: "Then it's a bad idea to prove that with MORE false information. A Google search of "susan barnett"+"court martial"+"obama" produces all of seven results, none of which have anything to do with what you're saying. Now if you drop "susan" from that search, there are lots of results mentioning a PAMELA Barnett. Is that who you're trying to refer to? "

SatinDoll: "Cpt.Pamela Barnett is an attorney for LCDR.Lakin."

Vickery2010: "That’s highly unlikely, considering that Cpt. Pamela Barnett is not an attorney."

See, YOU claimed that YOUR source was Barnett. And Barnett doesn't claim Lakin's attorney requested anything, or that the government told Lakin's attorney anything.

So have you managed to get a *new* source for this claim in the past month? Because otherwise, it really looks like you're trying to sell the exact same crap story, despite KNOWING that it's false.

66 posted on 12/06/2011 8:20:23 AM PST by Vickery2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
I am suspicious of any lawyer who uses the honorific “Dr.” because he holds a juris doctor degree (the same degree that all lawyers get from law school). Lawyers don’t use that honorific.

Not in social circles, certainly; but what about in the academic setting?
(Although I would more likely expect them to be called "professor"?)
Right or wrong, I know of a few who have done this, but in all cases it was a professor in an academic setting.
Just askin'.

But in any case, I agree about the "Esq."

67 posted on 12/06/2011 8:22:29 AM PST by Nevermore (...just a typical cracker, clinging to my Constitutional rights...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Vickery2010

Ah, you’re upset. Put some ice on it.


68 posted on 12/06/2011 8:29:03 AM PST by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
And if BHO was legally adopted in the US by someone other than his birth parents, that wouldn't change his place of birth nor his NBC status.

Under common law, it would change because the status is based upon to which nationality the parents adhere in terms of allegiance. If not an Indonesian citizen, then Obama's NBC status was still natural-born British subject.

69 posted on 12/06/2011 8:30:24 AM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Nevermore

Not even in an academic setting.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html

There is a very reasonable explanation for all of the social security numbers, information down a black hole, bizarre family history...etc.

Three letter Government Agency.


70 posted on 12/06/2011 8:31:47 AM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

“Ah, you’re upset.”

Is this how you usually respond to getting caught lying? Pretending it’s the other person’s fault for noticing?

“Put some ice on it.”

It’s not MY pants that are on fire, I’m afraid.


71 posted on 12/06/2011 8:54:42 AM PST by Vickery2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Great. Now get someone outside the Birther fringe to agree with that.


72 posted on 12/06/2011 10:02:19 AM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick; Nevermore; Notwithstanding

Of course some lawyers DO use DR. Perfectly legit.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/lawyers_are_doctors_too/

The use of the honorific “Dr.” is especially useful in Dr. Titus’ case, as he is a professor of law, and has practiced law at higher levels of professional standing than most lawyers.


73 posted on 12/06/2011 10:16:54 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen
Soon, the Soetoro adopted was annulled and Barry’s name was legally changed back to Barack Hussein Obama II. He continued to be an Indonesian National. Catholic Social Services continued to be Barack’s custodian until his 18th birthday, thus the Connecticut SSN. Legally, Barack’s residence was Connecticut even though he was residing with his guardian in Honolulu, HI.

A couple of questions.....

1) Is there a legal documentation in Hawaii or elsewhere stating what Obama's 'legal' name is?

2) If the Catholic custodian crap of Connecticut is true.....Through E-verify and other sources, why do they say that this Connecticut Social Security number was never issued to Barack Obama?

74 posted on 12/06/2011 10:35:09 AM PST by Electric Graffiti (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their Moonbats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Your link actually confirms that the profession largely rejects the honorific title “Dr.”

A JD lawyer who uses “Dr.” invites the ridicule of the academy and the profession.

It is similar to a person with an honorary doctorate - they technically can use the title “Dr.” but if they do they invite ridicule.


75 posted on 12/06/2011 11:40:48 AM PST by Notwithstanding (1998 ACU ratings: Newt=100%, Paul=88%, Santorum=84% [the last year all were in Congress])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: bvw

As a practical matter, it is NOT legit.

Even the deans of Yale and Harvard Law who are JDs don’t use the title “Dr.”

As a practical matter, there is no “higher level” or academic status that legitimizes the use of “Dr.” by a JD.

No self-respecting JD (who does not also have an MD or PhD) a uses the title “Dr.” Its not done.


76 posted on 12/06/2011 11:50:17 AM PST by Notwithstanding (1998 ACU ratings: Newt=100%, Paul=88%, Santorum=84% [the last year all were in Congress])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

Interesting. Now the Supreme Court is part of the so-called “Birther fringe.” How long have you felt this way??


77 posted on 12/06/2011 12:18:12 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
"It's not done.".

Meaning you don't like it.

The article itself is ALSO evidence that a number of lawyers are doing it. That is, it is legal, legitimate under industry ethics guidelines, and some are actually swimming in the pool and not just dipping their toes.

78 posted on 12/06/2011 12:36:47 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: edge919
I've no reason to believe that the USSC agrees with you.
79 posted on 12/06/2011 12:45:10 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

... other than the actual words of the Court which is what I was referring to.


80 posted on 12/06/2011 1:11:24 PM PST by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: edge919

Well, you should have no problem then.


81 posted on 12/06/2011 1:31:18 PM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Nope. You don’t get it. You don’t want to get it. You are wrong and can’t admit it.

It’s not done because those few who try it are ostracized.

If you wish to pretend that the existence of those few ostracized fools means you are right, then that’s a personal problem.

I can’t edify you if you are too proud to be edified.


82 posted on 12/06/2011 2:02:58 PM PST by Notwithstanding (1998 ACU ratings: Newt=100%, Paul=88%, Santorum=84% [the last year all were in Congress])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding

Call me Dr. bvw. In fact, add an ESQUIRE. No, make that a POPULAR SCIENCE. Better magazine.


83 posted on 12/06/2011 2:06:47 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding; bvw; RummyChick; Nevermore
Admittedly, I haven't listened to the video. Is it Mr. Herb Titus himself, using the title "Dr.?"

Or, others referring to him as "Dr."?

It appears that, elsewhere, he's referred to as "Mr." or "Esq."

Herbert W. Titus is of counsel to the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C. Prior to his association with this firm, Mr. Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding Dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Prior to his academic career, he served as a Trial Attorney and a Special Assistant United States Attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and Kansas City, Missouri. Today he is engaged in a general practice with a concentration in constitutional strategy, litigation, and appeals.

Mr. Titus holds the J.D. degree (cum laude) from Harvard and the B.S. degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon from which he graduated Phi Beta Kappa.

...

William J. Olson, P.C. - Attorneys At Law

Furthermore, it appears that a book authored by him, doesn't use the title. [1][2]

Additionally, some terminology on the various law degrees, in particular:

The term "Doctor of Law" refers to the degree of Juris Doctor (JD), which in the U.S. is the only first professional law degree,[20][21][22][23] and to the S.J.D. (Scientiae Juridicae Doctor or J.S.D., the degree name in English or Doctor of Juridical Science).[22][24] The S.J.D. is the research doctorate in law, and as such it is generally accepted as comparable to the more commonly awarded research doctorate, the Ph.D.[25] The S.J.D. is described as the "highest degree in law" by the University of Virginia,[26] the "terminal degree in law" by Indiana University[27] and Harvard Law School [28] and as the "most advanced law degree" by Yale Law School,[29] Georgetown Law,[30] New York University [31] and Stanford University.[32] The National Association of Legal Professionals states that the J.S.D./S.J.D. is "typically the most advanced (or terminal) law degree that would follow the earning of the LL.M. and J.D. degrees."[33] However, while the degree may be the highest research doctorate in law, the J.D. is also a doctorate (the highest professional doctorate in law),[34] as evinced by universities' description of the S.J.D. as a a "postdoctoral degree."[32][35] The American Bar Association has issued a Council Statement[36] stating that the J.D. be considered as being equivalent to the Ph.D. for employment and educational purposes.[37] The S.J.D. typically requires three to five years to complete, and requires an advanced study in law as a scientific discipline and a dissertation, which serves as an original contribution to the scholarly field of law.[38]

While it may be "socially unacceptable" in some circles, for a JD (Juris Doctorate) to refer to themselves with the "Dr." title, technically...they would be correct.

84 posted on 12/06/2011 2:29:13 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

The American Bar Association has issued a Council Statement:

"2. J.D. Degree - Ph.D. Degree Equivalency

WHEREAS, the acquisition of a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree requires from 84 to 90 semester hours of post baccalaureate study and the Doctor of Philosophy degree usually requires 60 semester hours of post baccalaureate study along with the writing of a dissertation, the two degrees shall be considered as equivalent degrees for educational employment purposes;"

http://apps.americanbar.org/legaled/accreditation/Council%20Statements.pdf

85 posted on 12/06/2011 2:34:42 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: the_doc
(I realize that some sort of signal is needed on documents, but my recollection from my own expert witness work in the 1980s is that the signature block typically had a printed/typed phrase such as "Attorney-at-Law." That is much more dignified, in my opinion, than Esquire [which is a feudal term that ordinarily refered to landed gentry, I believe].

Agreed _doc, Blacks Law Dictionary defines Esquire as follows:

In English law, a title of dignity next above a gentleman, and below a knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, sergeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others. In the United States, title commonly appended after name of an attorney.

86 posted on 12/06/2011 2:37:14 PM PST by suijuris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

It’s not just about social unacceptability. There are rules of Ethical Conduct.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/lawyers_are_doctors_too/

He does use the title Dr.

I guess Virginia says it is acceptable.Other states say it is not acceptable.

Originally published in The Forecast, Vol.4, N. 10 July 1997

By

Dr. Herbert W. Titus, J.D.

President of The Forecast Foundation

2400 Carolina Rd.

Chesapeake, Va. 23322

Reprinted by Permission


87 posted on 12/06/2011 3:05:07 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You would go to the trouble to discover this, but not why people believe him to have a Connecticut social security number?

That was what I got when I googled for possible explanations. It may not be the right explanation, but somebody asked what possible other explanation there could be, and the zip code mix-up idea was quite easy to find.

Now Jerome Corsi and WND, who fueled a lot of this speculation are saying Obama's Social Security Number "failed" a government e-verify test.

They're making out that it's yet another layer of conspiracy on top of the others, but really, what makes you think you can easily get Obama's actual SSN on the Internet?

What makes you so sure that there aren't fake SSNs for Obama circulating out there just to throw you off?

Do you really think he'd still be using a number that had been leaked to the public?

88 posted on 12/06/2011 3:15:10 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
"It’s not just about social unacceptability. There are rules of Ethical Conduct."

Which are mixed from state to state, as well as within the ABA itself. From your source:

"The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which superseded the Model Code in 1983, don’t directly address a lawyer’s use of doctor, nor do most legal ethics codes at the state level. As a result, guidance on the issue continues to come primarily from state ethics opinions.

These opinions generally turn on the question of whether using doctor or any other title constitutes a false or mis leading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. Such communications are prohibited under ABA Model Rule 7.1.

In 1986, a North Carolina ethics opinion advised that referring to an attorney holding a juris doctor degree as doctor “without explanation could be misleading and is therefore inappropriate.”

But in 2004, the ethics committee of the State Bar of Texas abandoned its long-standing position that lawyers may not refer to themselves as doctor in either social or professional settings. In Opinion 550, the committee concluded that the title is not inherently false or misleading. The committee found no reason to prohibit lawyers from indicating their advanced level of education in the same way as such professionals as educators and social scientists.

The committee also concluded that prohibiting the use of the term to avoid “self-laudation” no longer is necessary “in light of state-bar-approved legal special­ization and lawyer advertising.”

The committee advised, however, that it may be misleading for a lawyer to use doctor in certain contexts, such as advertising legal services relating to medical malpractice, because of the possibility of misleading prospective clients about a lawyer’s qualifications and the results he or she might achieve. "

I can see how some in society might be "confused" by a lawyer calling themselves a doctor of law...but if a Chemist with a Doctorate in Philosophy can refer to themselves as a doctor, I see no reason why a Lawyer with a Doctorate in Jurisprudence couldn't call themselves one as well. They are both, after all, holders of a "doctorate" degree.

Probably only a matter of time, since it appears the JD degree is only a few decades old, whereas the others are centuries old.

89 posted on 12/06/2011 3:18:29 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

And?

This has all already been covered.

The man is a JD and JDs are never called “doctor” (except pompous lawyers who embarrass the profession by doing so) and kind people who don’t understand the universal custom of the profession to eschew that honorific title despite the ABA’s unbinding editorial opinion. The profession in practice has resoundingly rejected the ABA’s view.


90 posted on 12/06/2011 4:46:23 PM PST by Notwithstanding (1998 ACU ratings: Newt=100%, Paul=88%, Santorum=84% [the last year all were in Congress])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Electric Graffiti; SatinDoll

>> 1) Is there a legal documentation in Hawaii or elsewhere stating what Obama’s ‘legal’ name is? <<

Hawaii DoH holds a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) with the name Barack Hussein Obama II on it, the name of his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, the name of his father, Barack Hussein Obama and the “date filed” Aug 8, 1961.

Obama’s original Long Form Birth Certificate, the document with a “date accepted” of Aug 8, 1961 and with the signatures of his mother, delivery doctor and hospital administrator, has been sealed and archived in a vault separate from long form birth certificates kept by Hawaii DoH.

The original long form BC was sealed when the Soetoro Adoptions was finalized in Hawaii, circa 1967. Obama’s legal name was changed to Barry Soetoro and a new COLB was created and filed. The new COLB listed Lolo Soetoro as Barry Soetoro’s father and S. Ann Soetoro as his mother. It has a “date filed” of Aug 8, 1961.

In late 1971 or early 1972, the Soetoro adoption was annulled and the Soetoro COLB was sealed and archived in Hawaii by court order. A new COLB was created and filed in Hawaii. The new COLB created in 1971,72 listed Barack Hussein Obama II as a child born on Aug 4, 1961 to parents Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama.

Understand? 3 legal documents concerning Obama’s birth record in Hawaii DoH. 2 are sealed and archived. The 3rd one is the short form or COLB.

>> Through E-verify and other sources, why do they say that this Connecticut Social Security number was never issued to Barack Obama? <<

Obots are scared to death someone will ask to see Barry Soetoro’s COLB in Hawaii or Barry Soetoro’s custody order obtained by Catholic Social Services of Connecticut. A false negative on the SSN is a nice distraction.


91 posted on 12/07/2011 5:23:30 AM PST by SvenMagnussen (BHO II naturalized as U.S. Citizen after becoming an Indonesian National)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: SvenMagnussen

Man, you are one seriously brazen liar.


92 posted on 12/07/2011 10:39:34 AM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

Individuals key-entering data back in the beginning of computerization would NOT use the “qwerty” keyboard. The 9 is nowhere near the 0 on the keyboard that would have been used back then. Nowhere at all near it.


93 posted on 12/08/2011 8:07:52 AM PST by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

More: In those days, before personal computers and especially when dealing with important databases like Social Security, every keystroke would be “VERIFIED” by a second individual.

The verifier actually re-entered every item and if there was a mismatch between what the verifier typed and the original key-entry person typed, then the verifier would be notified by the verifying machine and action would be taken to correct any mistake, such as a “typo” OR a misreading of the zip code.

It was next to impossible for such a “typo” to get through, but if it did, then there was another test: The computer program that processed the data to meld it into the computer file would have additional checks built in to find “exceptions”. An “exception report” would list the potential errors and mismatches and that data record would NOT go into the database or the file until the error was corrected.

With exception report in hand, a human being would work to get to the bottom of the mismatch.

An example of an exception, in this case, would be the alphabetic state code (HI) (keyed in for the person’s address) NOT being consistent with the key-entered zip code (a CT number). Computer programs contained tables of items like zip codes, just like what you linked to in your comment. The tables would be used within the program to compare the keyed data to what would be expected based upon data entered in other fields, such as ensuring that a Hawaiian address had a Hawaiian zip code.

In the case of SS#s, it’s very likely that a zip code table was used in the program, specifically because SS#s were prefixed by state. This grouping was also characteristic of early computerized files. It made sorting easier.

Two-operator keystroke verification and computer program exception reporting was standard operating procedure in computer rooms back then, in the same way that CPAs have standard operating procedures for keeping books. In fact, back then, CPAs who acted as auditors also audited the procedures and file-keeping in the computer department, as well as in other departments of a company, such as accounts receivable and payable, inventory control, cost accounting, payroll, etc.

All this makes the scenario you suggest even MORE unlikely.


94 posted on 12/08/2011 8:35:21 AM PST by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Diogenes, I believe you because it was ALSO standard operating procedure back then for a new birth certificate to be issued, with the adoptive parents on it AS IF they were the birth parents. Remember that this was in the day when illegitimacy was frowned upon and so the states, when a child was adopted, did as much as they could to prevent that stigma from following the child through life. It’s a fact, though, that vital records offices retained the first birth certificate. It was SEALED. There was a way for the office to access the original, based upon some kind of algorithm that the office knew. If he was adopted, his first birth certificate and every permutation afterwards is still there. On file. In accordance with their policies and procedures.


95 posted on 12/08/2011 8:49:54 AM PST by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Greenperson

That’s very possible and I think provides a rational counter argument.


96 posted on 12/08/2011 10:39:17 AM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Greenperson; El Sordo

“Individuals key-entering data back in the beginning of computerization would NOT use the “qwerty” keyboard. The 9 is nowhere near the 0 on the keyboard that would have been used back then. Nowhere at all near it.”

Except we’re not talking about the early days of computerization. Obama’s SSN was issued in the late 1970s. And there were keyboards in the late ‘70s (like the Apple II) that definitely had the 9 next to the 0.


97 posted on 12/08/2011 10:55:29 AM PST by Vickery2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Vickery2010
Thus is the problem, I think we have rational argument and counter argument for why BHO appears to have a SSN associated with Connecticut.

Without a clear understanding of the process used at the time, I don't think a solid conclusion can be drawn.

98 posted on 12/08/2011 11:42:16 AM PST by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Greenperson
Diogenes, I believe you because it was ALSO standard operating procedure back then for a new birth certificate to be issued, with the adoptive parents on it AS IF they were the birth parents. Remember that this was in the day when illegitimacy was frowned upon and so the states, when a child was adopted, did as much as they could to prevent that stigma from following the child through life. It’s a fact, though, that vital records offices retained the first birth certificate. It was SEALED. There was a way for the office to access the original, based upon some kind of algorithm that the office knew. If he was adopted, his first birth certificate and every permutation afterwards is still there. On file. In accordance with their policies and procedures.

That is exactly what I think, and those silly B@stards at the State of Hawaii have been intentionally hiding the truth from the American People because that is in accordance with their "procedures" and state laws. That no law can trump the Constitution and that they have a DUTY to the nation to not let such games be played, is simply beyond their feeble understanding.

That Democrats would lie, cheat and steal is to be expected. That our side would let them get away with it is not. I am more angry at our side for tolerating it (and in some cases aiding and abetting it) than I am at the lying Democrats for being lying Democrats.

As for myself, my adoption was never a secret. I remember going before the judge who asked me if I wanted my name changed to that of my new Daddy. I said "sure!" (I think I was 5 years old at the time.) Being so young, I really hadn't got accustomed to using a last name, so I wasn't attached to it anyway.

99 posted on 12/09/2011 8:16:13 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Thus is the problem, I think we have rational argument and counter argument for why BHO appears to have a SSN associated with Connecticut.

Without a clear understanding of the process used at the time, I don't think a solid conclusion can be drawn.

And yet SvenMagnussen's explanation seems to tie everything together neatly. Occam's razor dude. I'm going to accept his theory as the best explanation till I hear a better one.

100 posted on 12/09/2011 8:25:29 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-115 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson