Will Obama's Stolen SS# Sink Him Now?

jficquette · Jul 5, 2012

Quote from tomdavis:

Where in the Constitution does it say that a valid SS# is required to be President?

If you can't pass E Verify you can't legally work in the US.

tomdavis · Jul 5, 2012

Quote from jficquette:

If you can't pass E Verify you can't legally work in the US.

That argument will never get off the ground. The qualifications for holding the office of President are in the Constitution.

AK Forty Seven · Jul 5, 2012

Before the discussion gos any farther as if this story is true I'll point this is probably another bull shit birther fantasy

tomdavis · Jul 5, 2012

Quote from pspr:

It's high crimes and misdemeanors to fraudulently use someone else's social security number. It's illegal. And, the legal term is "fraud".

Fraud is difficult to prove because it requires proof of intent. In this case it would require proof of intent to commit a crime that allegedly took place over 20 years ago. If it could be proven in a court of law (which I doubt), then perhaps you could try to impeach Obama. Good luck with that.

mrbill · Jul 5, 2012

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

Before the discussion gos any farther as if this story is true I'll point this is probably another bull shit birther fantasy

Of course, False per Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp

Birthers are funny.

AK Forty Seven · Jul 5, 2012

Quote from mrbill:

Of course, False per Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp

Birthers are funny.

Good find

TGregg · Jul 6, 2012

Quote from tomdavis:

Fraud is difficult to prove because it requires proof of intent.

:blink: One sees no mention of intent in the legal definition:

Definition of Fraud

All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprises, tricks, cunning or dissembling, and any unfair way which another is cheated.

Source: Blackâs Law Dictionary, 5th ed., by Henry Campbell Black, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1979.

tomdavis · Jul 6, 2012

Quote from TGregg:

:blink: One sees no mention of intent in the legal definition:

Intent is inscribed in the statutes, not the definitions.

Talk to any prosecutor and you'll get an earful about how difficult it is to prove fraud, specifically the issue of intent.

Below are examples:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/the-difficulty-of-proving-financial-crimes/

"....a decision issued on Friday by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that reversed the conviction of a financial executive accused of accounting fraud for lack of evidence of any intent to defraud or mislead."

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00949.htm

Because the defendant must intend to harm the fraud's victims, "[m]isrepresentations amounting only to a deceit are insufficient to maintain a mail or wire fraud prosecution."

mrbill · Jul 6, 2012

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

Good find

Thanks, but it's so easy to disprove most of the lies by the crazies. The mentality of the followers of these types of people is really funny.